1. law, govt and politics
2. politics
3. elections

John Arntz
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS
City and County of San Francisco
Director
sfelections.org
NOTE: This version of the Voter Information Pamphlet does
not include your sample ballot, because different versions of
the sample ballot apply throughout San Francisco.
Your sample ballot can be accessed, along with the location
of your polling place, at sfelections.org/pollsite (starting in
early October).
Also, the pages in this online version of the pamphlet are
arranged in a different order from the printed version. For
this reason, we are unable to provide a Table of Contents. To
find specific information, please refer to the bookmarks on
the left side of this file.
Voice (415) 554-4375
Fax (415) 554-7344
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place,
City Hall, Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102
Page 1 of 1
TTY (415) 554-4386
sfelections.org
Consolidated General Election
City and County of San Francisco
Voter Information Pamphlet
& Sample Ballot
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
by
VOTE!
MAIL
TS
FF BALLO
DROP O
at a
DROP-OFF STATION
at your
POLLING PLACE
check back cover for address
at CITY HALL
Published by:
Department of Elections
City and County of San Francisco
sfelections.org
VOTE HERE
請查看封底，以了解您的投票站地址以及郵寄投票申請表。許多投票站地點已經有改動！
To visit
sfelections.org,
scan this QR code:
重要：如果您已經申請中文版的選舉材料，不久您會收到中文版的《選民資料手冊》。中文
版的《選民資料手冊》不包含選票樣本。請保留這份 英文版的《選民資料手冊》，以便參閱
其中的選票樣本。如果要索取本手冊的中文版或需要其他協助，請致電(415) 554-4367。
Consulte la contraportada para averiguar la dirección de su lugar de votación y encontrar una solicitud
de voto por correo. ¡Muchos lugares de votación han cambiado!
IMPORTANTE: Si usted ha solicitado materiales electorales en español, pronto se le enviará un Folleto
de Información para los Electores por correo. El folleto en español no contiene la muestra de la boleta.
Guarde este folleto en inglés para consultar la muestra de su boleta. Para solicitar una copia del folleto
en español o recibir algún otro tipo de asistencia, por favor llame al (415) 554-4366.
Important Dates
First day of early voting at City Hall,
approximate mailing date for vote-by-mail ballots
Monday, October 6
Deadline to register to vote in the November
election
Monday, October 20
First weekend of early voting at City Hall
Saturday and Sunday, October 25–26
Deadline for the Department of Elections
to receive a request for a vote-by-mail ballot
Tuesday, October 28, 5 p.m.
Last weekend of early voting at City Hall
Saturday and Sunday, November 1–2
Ballot Drop-off Stations are open at the Goodlett
and Grove Street entrances to City Hall
Saturday, November 1–Tuesday, November 4
Deadline for new citizens naturalized after
October 20 to register and vote (only at City Hall)
Tuesday, November 4, 8 p.m.
Election Day voting hours
(all polling places and City Hall)
Tuesday, November 4, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Visit sfelections.org/toolkit to:
Check your voter registration status,
including party preference
Register to vote or update your registration
Learn more about ranked-choice voting
Request a vote-by-mail ballot
Check the status of your vote-by-mail ballot
Look up your polling place location
View your sample ballot
Contact the Department of Elections
Email: use the email form at sfelections.org/sfvote
English: (415) 554-4375
中文: (415) 554-4367
Español: (415) 554-4366
TTY: (415) 554-4386
Office hours are Mondays through Fridays (except holidays) from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.
2
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP2
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS
City and County of San Francisco
sfelections.org
Dear San Francisco Voter:
JOHN ARNTZ
Director
September 12, 2014
Everybody will vote a big ballot for the November 4, 2014, Consolidated General Election.
The ballot includes voter-nominated offices, nonpartisan contests, six state ballot measures, and 12 local measures.
Voters will use the ranked-choice voting method to cast their votes for the offices of Assessor-Recorder, Public
Defender, and Supervisor in the even-numbered Supervisorial districts; 2014 marks the City’s 10-year anniversary of
using ranked-choice voting for most local offices.
The effect of so many decisions is that those of us who live in even-numbered Supervisorial districts will vote
a five-card ballot. A map with the location of each Supervisorial district is included in this pamphlet and at
sfelections.org. Those who are not electing their Supervisor will receive four ballot cards. So, as always, check
and vote both sides of the ballot cards!
Voting at City Hall
Beginning October 6, early voting is available in City Hall to all registered voters:
• Weekdays from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. (except the legal holiday on October 13)
• Weekends: October 25–26 and November 1–2, from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. (enter City Hall from Grove
Street)
Election Day, November 4, voting begins at 7 a.m. at all San Francisco polling places, including the voting
station located in City Hall. Polls close at 8 p.m.
Vote-by-Mail Ballot Drop-off Stations
Ballot Drop-off Stations are available outside two City Hall entrances–the main entrance, at Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
Place, and the Grove Street entrance. The dates and hours are:
• Saturday and Sunday, November 1–2, 10 a.m.–4 p.m.
• Monday, November 3, 8 a.m.–5 p.m.
• Election Day, November 4, 7 a.m.–8 p.m.
Follow Us on Social Media
We’re using sfelections.org and social media to provide information and highlight our efforts to prepare for and
conduct the election. My mom certainly likes receiving news from the Department, so please consider following us,
too: visit sfelections.org, follow us on Twitter at @sfelections, and like us at Facebook.com/sfelections.
Coming in 2015: San Francisco Election Materials in Four Languages
Starting next year, San Francisco ballots, the Voter Information Pamphlet, and other election materials will be available in Filipino, in addition to English, Chinese, and Spanish. Voters who prefer to receive election materials in
another language, in addition to English, are encouraged to update their language preference by completing the
form at sfelections.org/language or by calling or visiting the Department’s office.
How Will You Do It?
The cover of this pamphlet illustrates many options to fit voters’ schedules. Information about these voting options
can be found in the pamphlet.
No matter how you do it, remember to “Be A Voter” in this and every election.
Respectfully,
John Arntz, Director
Voice (415) 554-4375
Fax (415) 554-7344
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place,
City Hall, Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102
TTY (415) 554-4386
sfelections.org
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP3
3
Purpose of the Voter Information Pamphlet
Before each election, the Department of Elections
prepares the Voter Information Pamphlet, which is
mailed to every registered voter as required by law.
o
o
In this Voter Information Pamphlet, you will find:
o
• information about when, where, and how
to vote,
o
• your sample ballot,
• candidates’ statements of their qualifications
for office,
• information about the duties and compensa­
tion of the local elective offices sought by
those candidates,
• information about each local ballot measure,
including:
o
an impartial summary of the measure,
prepared by San Francisco’s Ballot
Simplification Committee,
GO GREEN!
a financial analysis, prepared by
San Francisco’s Controller,
an explanation of how it qualified for
the ballot,
arguments supporting and opposing
the measure, and
the legal text of the measure.
You may bring this pamphlet with you to your polling place. In addition, every precinct is supplied
with a copy. Please ask a poll worker if you would
like to see it.
In addition to the San Francisco Voter Information
Pamphlet, there is an Official Voter Information
Guide, produced by the California Secretary of
State, with information on candidates for state and
federal office and state ballot measures. You may
access it at sos.ca.gov.
To stop receiving this paper pamphlet
in the future, see page 185.
The Ballot Simplification Committee
The Ballot Simplification Committee works in public meetings to prepare an impartial summary of
each local ballot measure in simple language. The Committee also writes or reviews other information in this pamphlet, including the glossary of “Words You Need to Know” and the “Frequently Asked
Questions” (FAQs). The Committee members have backgrounds in journalism, education, and written
communication, and they volunteer their time to prepare these informational materials for voters.
The Committee members are:
Betty Packard, Chair
Nominated by:
the Northern California Broadcasters Association
Adele Fasick
Nominated by:
the League of Women Voters
June Fraps Nominated by:
the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Christine Unruh
Nominated by:
the Pacific Media Workers Guild
Ann Jorgensen Nominated by:
the San Francisco Unified School District Joshua White, ex officio
Deputy City Attorney
4
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP4
Check the Back Cover to Confirm Your Polling Place Location
Many polling places have changed for the upcoming election!
On the back cover of this pamphlet, you will find:
• Your polling place address. Please make a note
of it. If you have a vote-by-mail ballot, you
may turn in your voted ballot at your polling
place on Election Day.
• Your precinct number.
• An indication of whether your polling place is
accessible for people with disabilities.
• A physical description of your polling place
entryway, such as slope or ramped access.
Your polling place address is also available
at sfelections.org/pollsite.
If your polling place is not functionally accessible,
visit the above website or call (415) 554-4551 prior to
Election Day to find the nearest accessible polling
place within your district. For accessible polling place
information on Election Day, call (415) 554-4375.
Some Precincts Do Not Have a
Polling Place
Voting precincts with fewer than 250 registered
voters are designated “Mail Ballot Precincts.” An
official ballot, instructions, and a postage-paid
return envelope will be mailed automatically to all
voters in those precincts approximately four weeks
before every election.
For voters in those precincts who would prefer to
drop off their ballot at a polling place, the addresses
of the two polling places nearest to their precinct
are provided in the instructions.
Why Do Polling Places Change?
The Department of Elections does not own any of
the sites that are used as polling places; it relies on
the community to provide locations that are accessible for all voters. An average of 13% of polling
place locations change each election because site
owners no longer make their space available.
Polling places may also change as a cost-savings
measure. For some elections, two neighboring precincts are consolidated to share a single polling
place.
If you own a recreation room, lobby, or other space
that might be suitable as a polling place for future
elections, please contact the Department of
Elections at (415) 554-4375.
Late Polling Place Changes
If a polling place becomes unavailable after the
Voter Information Pamphlet is mailed, the
Department of Elections notifies affected voters
with:
• “Change of Polling Place” Notification Cards
mailed to all registered voters in the precinct.
• “Change of Polling Place” Signs posted at the
previous location. For any voters who are
unaware of the polling place change, the
Department of Elections posts “Change of
Polling Place” signs at the address of the old
location on Election Day. Voters may take a
copy of the new polling place address from a
pad attached to the sign.
sfelections.org
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP5
5
Elections in California
In June 2010, California voters approved Proposition 14,
which created a “top two” or “open” primary election system. The passage of this proposition
changed how the primary and general elections for
state constitutional and legislative offices and U.S.
congressional offices are conducted in California.
These offices are now known as “voter-nominated”
offices.
What does this mean for voters in the
November 2014 general election?
In the general election for a voter-nominated office:
• Only the two candidates who received the
most votes in the primary election—regardless
of party preference—move on to the general
election.
• Write-in candidates are not permitted, but, if
a qualified write-in candidate had been one
of the two candidates who received the most
votes in the primary election, his or her name
would be printed on the general election
ballot.
• There is no independent nomination process.
The voter-nominated offices on the November ballot
are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Governor
Lieutenant Governor
Secretary of State
Controller
Treasurer
Attorney General
Insurance Commissioner
Member, State Board of Equalization
United States Representative
State Senator (in some districts, but not in
San Francisco)
• Member of the State Assembly
The Superintendent of Public Instruction contest
also appears on the November ballot. This is a nonpartisan office. The contests for local San Francisco
offices are also nonpartisan.
What does party preference mean?
Party preference refers to the political party with
which the candidate or the voter is registered.
If a candidate for a voter-nominated office has a
preference for a qualified political party, the party is
printed by the candidate’s name on the ballot, as
required by law. If a candidate does not have a preference for a qualified political party, “Party
Preference: None” is printed by the candidate’s
name.
The candidate’s party preference does not imply
that the candidate is endorsed by that party.
Political parties may endorse candidates for voternominated offices; any party endorsements
received by the Department of Elections by the submission deadline are listed on page 36 of this pamphlet.
The party preference, if any, of a candidate for a
nonpartisan office does not appear on the ballot.
Where can I find more information about
California’s election system?
For more information about California’s election
system, refer to the Official Voter Information Guide,
produced by the California Secretary of State, or
visit sos.ca.gov.
6
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP6
Voting: When, Where, and How
Vote at City Hall
Any San Francisco voter may vote on or before
Election Day at City Hall, Room 48:
• Monday through Friday, October 6–November 3
(except holidays), 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• Saturday and Sunday, October 25–26 and November 1–2, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (enter on Grove
Street)
• Election Day, Tuesday, November 4, 7 a.m. to 8
p.m.
Vote by Mail
Any voter may request a vote-by-mail ballot, for this
election only, or for all elections.
• If you are a permanent vote-by-mail voter, your
ballot will be mailed on or shortly after October 6.
To check when your ballot was mailed or received by the Department of Elections, go to
sfelections.org/vbmstatus or call (415) 554-4375.
If you have not received your ballot by October
20, please call.
• When you receive your ballot, carefully read and
follow the Vote-by-Mail Instructions enclosed
with it.
• Return your voted ballot by mail, drop it off
at City Hall, or drop it off at any San Francisco
polling place on Election Day. Find details in the
Vote-by-Mail Instructions enclosed with your
ballot, or go to sfelections.org/vbminsert.
• Beginning December 3, you can confirm that
your vote-by-mail ballot was counted. If your
ballot could not be counted, you will be advised
of the reason. Go to sfelections.org/vbmstatus or
call (866) 325-9163 toll free.
How to Request to Vote by Mail
If you want to vote by mail for the November 4 election, the Department of Elections must receive your
request before 5 p.m. on October 28. There are several
ways to request to vote by mail:
• Complete and submit the application found on
the back cover of this pamphlet.
• Go to sfelections.org/toolkit:
Click on “Voting: when, where, and how,”
o
Click on “Voting by mail,”
o
Click on one of these options and follow the
instructions:
o
“Apply online to vote by mail for this
election,” or
•
“Download request to vote by mail for all
elections.” (Printing, mailing, and signature
are required.)
•
• Call (415) 554-4375, or visit the Department of
Elections in City Hall, Room 48.
• Mail or fax a request to the Department of Elections with your name, your birth date, your home
address, the address where you want your ballot
to be mailed, and your signature.
If you want to vote by mail for all elections, indicate
on your application or when you call that you wish to
become a permanent vote-by-mail voter.
Vote at Your Polling Place on Election Day
• To receive the ballot with the correct contests
and candidates for your precinct, vote at your
assigned polling place.
• Many polling places have changed! Check the
address of your polling place on the back cover
of this pamphlet, or go to sfelections.org/pollsite.
• Polling places are open on Election Day, Tuesday,
November 4, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
How to Vote
Choose Your Ballot Format
• You will receive a paper ballot unless you request to use an accessible voting machine at City
Hall or your polling place (for more information,
see page 14).
• If you use the accessible voting machine, the
machine will provide instructions.
Mark Your Paper Ballot
• Read the instructions printed on each ballot card,
and review both sides of each card for contests.
您
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP7
• Check the number of candidates you may select
for each contest, which is printed above the list
of candidate names. If you mark more than the
allowed number of candidates, or both “YES”
and “NO” in a measure contest, your vote for
that contest or choice cannot be counted.
1
7
How to mark your choice:
• Use a pen with black or dark blue ink or a #2 pencil.
• Complete the arrow pointing to your choice for
each contest and measure, as shown in picture 1
• If you don’t want to vote for a certain contest or
measure, leave that contest or measure blank.
Your votes for the other contests and measures
will still count.
How to Vote for a Qualified Write-In
Candidate
• In addition to the candidates listed on the ballot,
there may be other people running as qualified
write-in candidates. Qualified write-in candidates
have submitted the appropriate documentation
to run for an office.
• The only write-in votes that can be counted are
votes for qualified candidates.
WRITE-IN /
/ NO LISTADO
您
2
WRITE-IN /
/ NO
WRITE-IN /
/ NO
How to vote for a
qualified write-in candidate:
• For a list of qualified write-in candidates, visit
sfelections.org/writein within two weeks prior to
Election Day, or ask a poll worker.
• Before casting a write-in vote, make sure:
the candidate is not listed on the ballot.
o
the candidate is a qualified write-in candidate.
o
to write the candidate’s name in the space at
the end of the candidate list and complete the
arrow that points to the space, as shown in
picture 2
o
How to Correct a Mistake
John Hancock
WRITE-IN /
/ NO LISTADO
• If you make a mistake on your vote-by-mail ballot,
follow the Vote-by-Mail Instructions that were
enclosed with your ballot, or call (415) 554-4375.
• If you make a mistake on the ballot provided at
your polling place, ask a poll worker for a replacement.
• Voters may replace up to two sets of ballot cards.
How to Find More Information
For more information about voting,
visit sfelections.org/toolkit.
8
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP8
Ranked-Choice Voting
Ranked-choice voting was passed by San Francisco
voters as an amendment to the City Charter in March
2002 (Proposition A).
Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank up to three
candidates for the same office. San Francisco voters
use ranked-choice voting to elect the Mayor, Sheriff,
District Attorney, City Attorney, Treasurer, AssessorRecorder, Public Defender, and Members of the Board
of Supervisors.
For the November 4 election, all San Francisco voters
will use ranked-choice voting to elect the AssessorRecorder and Public Defender. Voters who live in
Supervisorial Districts 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 will also elect
their member of the Board of Supervisors using
ranked-choice voting.
How Ranked-Choice Voting Works
Initially, everyone’s vote counts for his or her firstchoice candidate. If a candidate has the majority—
more than half—of these votes, that candidate wins.
• If no candidate has the majority of votes, the
candidate in last place is eliminated. Votes for the
eliminated candidate transfer to the next-choice candidates marked on those ballots.
• If one candidate has the majority after these votes
are transferred, that candidate wins.
• If there is still no candidate with the majority of
votes, the process of eliminating candidates and
transferring votes continues until one candidate has
the majority.
Marking the Ranked-Choice Ballot
With ranked-choice voting, the
names of all the candidates
are listed in three repeating
columns on the ballot. This
allows you to rank up to three
candidates for the same office:
one favorite, and two others.
• Select only one choice per
column.
• To rank fewer than three
candidates, leave any remaining columns blank.
• To vote for a qualified writein candidate who is not
listed on the ballot, write the
person’s name on the blank
line at the end of the candidate list and complete the
arrow.
FAVORITE
SAN FRANCISCO ATTRACTION
最愛的三藩市景點
ATRACCIÓN FAVORITA DE
SAN FRANCISCO
1
FIRST CHOICE
第一選擇
PRIMERA PREFERENCIA
FAVORITE
SAN FRANCISCO ATTRACTION
最愛的三藩市景點
ATRACCIÓN FAVORITA DE
SAN FRANCISCO
2
SECOND CHOICE
第二選擇
SEGUNDA PREFERENCIA
FAVORITE
SAN FRANCISCO ATTRACTION
最愛的三藩市景點
ATRACCIÓN FAVORITA DE
SAN FRANCISCO
3
THIRD CHOICE
第三選擇
TERCERA PREFERENCIA
Vote for One—Must be different from
your first choice
選一個 (必須與第一個選擇不同)
Vote por uno— Tiene que ser diferente de
su primera preferencia
Vote for One—must be different than your
first and second choices
選一個 (必須與第一個和第二個選擇不同)
Vote por uno— Tiene que ser diferente de su
primera y segunda preferencias
ALCATRAZ ISLAND
監獄島
ISLA DE ALCATRAZ
COIT TOWER
考伊特塔
TORRE COIT
ALCATRAZ ISLAND
監獄島
ISLA DE ALCATRAZ
COIT TOWER
考伊特塔
TORRE COIT
ALCATRAZ ISLAND
監獄島
ISLA DE ALCATRAZ
COIT TOWER
考伊特塔
TORRE COIT
FISHERMAN’S WHARF
漁人碼頭
FISHERMAN’S WHARF
FISHERMAN’S WHARF
漁人碼頭
FISHERMAN’S WHARF
FISHERMAN’S WHARF
漁人碼頭
FISHERMAN’S WHARF
Vote for One
請選一個
Vote por uno
Why do some contests have only one
candidate?
How do I mark my ballot when there are
fewer than three candidates?
For Assessor-Recorder, Public Defender, and District 4
Supervisor, only one candidate for each office filed
before the deadline to appear on the ballot. Two candidates filed to appear on the ballot for District 2
Supervisor. There may be other people who file to be
write-in candidates. Their names are not printed on the
ballot but appear on the Certified List of Qualified
Write-in Candidates, available at sfelections.org beginning October 22 and at polling places on Election Day.
To rank fewer than three candidates, or if there are
fewer than three candidates for an office, mark your
choice(s) and leave any remaining columns blank.
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP9
9
San Francisco’s Supervisorial Districts
San Francisco is divided into eleven Supervisorial
districts. For the November 4 election, San
Francisco voters who live in Districts 2, 4, 6, 8,
and 10 will elect their member of the Board of
Supervisors.
To find your district, refer to the map below or the
number printed next to “SUP” on the front cover of
this pamphlet.












District 1 covers most of the Richmond neighborhood.
District 7 includes Lake Merced and West of Twin
Peaks.
District 2 includes the Presidio, Cow Hollow, Marina
and Pacific Heights neighborhoods, as well as part
of the Richmond neighborhood.
District 8 includes the Castro, Diamond Heights, Noe
Valley, Glen Park and Upper Market neighborhoods.
District 3 includes Chinatown, Nob Hill, Russian Hill,
Telegraph Hill and the northern Embarcadero waterfront.
District 4 covers most of the Sunset neighborhood.
District 5 includes the Haight-Ashbury, Inner Sunset,
Panhandle and Western Addition neighborhoods.
District 6 includes the Civic Center and South of
Market neighborhoods, part of the Potrero Hill
neighborhood, and Treasure Island.
District 9 includes the Mission and Bernal Heights
neighborhoods and most of the Portola neighborhood.
District 10 includes the Bayview and Hunter’s Point
neighborhoods and part of the Potrero Hill, Visitacion Valley and Portola neighborhoods.
District 11 includes the Ingleside, Excelsior, Ocean
View and Merced Heights neighborhoods.
10
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP10
Multilingual Voter Services
In compliance with federal law and local ordinance, the
Department of Elections provides services to voters
and official election materials in Chinese and Spanish,
in addition to English. Election materials and ballot
facsimiles are also available in Filipino, Vietnamese,
Korean, and Japanese at each polling place.
Multilingual voter services include:
• Voter information in English, Chinese, and
Spanish at sfelections.org.
• Election materials in Chinese and Spanish: ballots, voter registration forms, voter notices, voteby-mail ballot applications and instructions, and
Voter Information Pamphlets.
• Instructional signs at all polling places on
Election Day.
• Bilingual poll worker assistance at designated
polling places on Election Day.
• Telephone assistance in many languages, available Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day. For
assistance, call (415) 554-4375.
我們可以協助您!
依照聯邦法律和地方法令，選務處提供選民中文
服務和官方選舉資料。中文服務包括：
•
網上提供的中文選舉資料: sfelections.org。
•
已翻譯的選舉資料：選票、「選民登記表」、
選舉預告、「郵寄投票申請表」和指南以及
《選民資料手冊》。
•
於選舉日在每個投票站提供中文的說明標
牌。
•
於選舉日在指定的投票站有雙語工作人員提
供中文語言協助。
•
於星期一至星期五的上午 8 時至下午 5時及
選舉日上午7時正至晚上 8 時正提供的中文
電話協助：(415) 554-4367。
中文版的《選民資料手冊》
除了英文版《選民資料手冊》之外，選務處還提供
中文版的《選民資料手冊》
。如果您想收到英文之
外語言的選舉資料，請在選務處網站sfelections
.org/language更新您的 選民登記或致電(415)
554-4367。
¡Le podemos ayudar!
Conforme a la ley federal y al reglamento municipal,
el Departamento de Elecciones proporciona materiales
electorales y asistencia en español para los electores.
Los servicios en español incluyen:
• Información electoral en español en
sfelections.org.
• Materiales electorales traducidos: la boleta
electoral, el formulario de inscripción para votar,
avisos a los electores, solicitudes e instrucciones
para votar por correo y el Folleto de Información
para los Electores.
• Rótulos con instrucciones en español en los
lugares de votación el Día de las Elecciones.
• Trabajadores electorales bilingües en ciertos
lugares de votación el Día de las Elecciones.
• Asistencia telefónica en español disponible de
lunes a viernes de 8 a.m. a 5 p.m. y el Día de
las Elecciones de 7 a.m. a 8 p.m. llamando al
(415) 554-4366.
El Folleto de Información para los Electores en español
Además del Folleto de Información para los Electores
en inglés, el Departamento de Elecciones provee un
Folleto de Información para los Electores en español
a los electores que lo soliciten. Si quiere materiales
en español además de inglés, actualice su inscripción
electoral en sfelections.org/language o llame al (415)
554-4366.
Chúng tôi có thể giúp quý vị!
Các tài liệu về cuộc bỏ phiếu và mẫu phiếu bầu bằng
tiếng Việt có sẵn tại mỗi trạm bỏ phiếu. Để được trợ giúp,
xin gọi số (415) 554-4375.
도와 드리겠습니다!
한국어로 된 선거 관련 자료 및 팩스 투표용지가 투표소
에 마련되어 있습니다. 도움이 필요한 경우, (415) 5544375번으로 전화 주시기 바랍니다.
あなたのお手伝いをいたします。
各投票所には日本語の選挙資料および投票用紙も用意
されています。支援が必要な場合、(415) 554-4375まで
お問い合わせください。
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP11
11
COMING IN 2015:
San Francisco Election Materials in Four Languages
Choose to vote in English, Chinese, Spanish, or Filipino!
Beginning with the 2015 election, San Francisco
ballots, the Voter Information Pamphlet, and other
elections materials will be available in Filipino,
in addition to English, Chinese, and Spanish.
Therefore, the Department of Elections has
begun implementing plans to provide additional
Filipino-language services and election materials
beginning with the November 3, 2015, election.
The City has recently certified Filipino (Tagalog)
as the third language required under the San
Francisco Language Access Ordinance, in addition to Chinese and Spanish. The Language
Access Ordinance, established in 2001, requires
city departments that interact with the public to
provide translated materials and other services.
For the November 4, 2014, election, election
materials and ballot facsimiles in Filipino are
available at each polling place.
If you want election materials in a language other
than English, update your voter registration at
sfelections.org/language or call (415) 554-4375.
City departments must implement the new
Filipino-language requirement by the end of 2015.
DARATING SA 2015:
Mga Materyales ng Eleksyon sa San Francisco sa Apat mga Wika
Pumiling bumoto sa Ingles, Intsik, Espanyol, o Pilipino!
Siimula sa eleksyon sa 2015, ang mga balota sa
San Francisco, ang Pamplet ng Impormasyong
Botante, at mga iba pang materyales ng eleksyon
ay makukuha sa Pilipino, bilang karagdagan sa
Ingles, Intsik, at Espanyol.
Pinatunayan ng Lungsod kamakailan na ang
Pilipino ay ang pangatlong wika na kailangan sa
ilalim ng San Francisco Language Access
Ordinance, bilang karagdagan sa Intsik at
Espanyol. Ang Language Access Ordinance, na
itinatag noong 2001, ay nag-atas sa mga departamento ng Lungsod na nakikipag-ugnayan sa publiko na magbigay ng mga nai-salin na materyales
at iba pang mga serbisyo.
Dapat ipatupad ng mga departamento ng
Lungsod ang bagong pangangailangang sa
wikang Pilipino sa pagtatapos ng taong 2015.
Dahil dito, ang Departamento ng Eleksyon
ay nagsimula ng magpatupad ng mga plano
upang makapagbigay ng mga karagdagang mga
serbisyo at materyales ng eleksyon sa wikang
Pilipino simula sa eleksyon sa ika-3 ng
Nobyembre, 2015.
Para sa eleksyon sa ika-4 ng Nobyembre, 2014,
mayroon ng makukuha na mga materyales ng
eleksyon at mga kopya ng balota sa Wikang
Pilipino sa bawat presinto.
Kung gusto ninyo ng mga materyales ng
eleksyon sa isang wika maliban sa Ingles,
baguhin ang inyong pagrehistro ng botante
sa sfelections.org/language o tumawag sa
(415) 554-7796.
Poll Workers Are Needed for
November 4, 2014, Election!
The Department of Elections is currently seeking poll workers for the
upcoming November 4, 2014, election.
It takes more than 2,500 poll workers to conduct an election. Poll workers operate polling places on Election Day and assist voters in every
part of the voting process. They must attend a training class prior to the
election, in which all duties are explained in detail. Lead poll workers
must also pick up materials before Election Day and transport them to
their assigned polling place on the morning of the election.
Applicants must be United States citizens, age 18 or older, and registered to vote in California. If you are a non-citizen, legal resident of the
United States, you may work as a Translator; those fluent in Chinese,
Spanish, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, or Japanese in addition to
English are encouraged to apply.
All positions are one-day assignments and pay between $142–$195.
Individuals interested in serving as poll workers must apply in person
at the Poll Worker Hiring Office, which is open every Tuesday, Thursday,
and Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and is located at the Department
of Elections at City Hall.
We look forward to having you join our poll worker team!
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP13
13
Keep Your Registration Up-to-Date
Many Life Changes Require a
Voter Registration Update
Have you moved or changed your name? Do you want
to change your political party preference?
Do you need to make other changes to your voter
record, such as changing your mailing address, email
address, or vote-by-mail status?
To update your registration, go to sfelections.org
/update and find the following options:
• Check your current voter registration record
You can confirm that you are registered to vote,
verify your party preference, and check whether
you are a permanent vote-by-mail voter. You’ll
also have the option to look up your polling
place address and view your sample ballot.
• Notify us of voters no longer living at your
address
Sometimes voters do not notify the Department
of Elections of a change in their address. If you
receive election materials for someone who is
not living at your address, please let us know by
returning the materials to us or by completing
the form at sfelections.org/update.
• Notify us of a deceased voter
In the unfortunate event of a person’s death, you
may notify our office so that we can remove the
person’s name from the voter list. Your notification will assist us in maintaining an up-to-date
voter list.
Go to sfelections.org/update to make any registration
updates.
• Register to vote, or change your name,
residential address, or party preference
You may now go online to register to vote or to
make any changes to your registration, such as
your name, residential address, or political party
preference.
• Update or correct your voter registration information (other than changing your name, residential address, or party preference)
Do you need to change or remove your telephone number or your email address, add a
mailing address, correct the spelling of your
name, or update your language preference?
These changes are easy to make and do not
require a new registration.
• Cancel your voter registration
Only you can request that your voter registration
be cancelled. Cancel your registration if you have
moved out of San Francisco or no longer want
to vote. Complete the form at sfelections.org
/update, then print it and return it to the Department of Elections. State law requires that your
original signature appear on a request to cancel
your registration.
!
Remember to check
the back cover for
your polling place address.
14
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP14
Accessible Voting and Services for Voters with Disabilities
Accessible Formats of the Voter Information Pamphlet:
The Voter Information Pamphlet is posted online in a format that can be used
with a screen reader and in MP3 format; visit sfelections.org/toolkit and click
on “Election information and education.” It is also available in audiocassette,
audio CD, and large-print formats. To request a copy of this pamphlet in an
accessible format, go to sfelections.org or call (415) 554-4375.
Audio copies of the Voter Information Pamphlet are also available from the
San Francisco Library for the Blind and Print Disabled at 100 Larkin Street,
or call (415) 557-4253.
Voting by Mail: Prior to each election, vote-by-mail voters are mailed an
official ballot with a postage-paid return envelope. Any voter may request
to vote by mail in any election. Find a Vote-by-Mail Application on the
back cover of this pamphlet or at sfelections.org/toolkit, or call (415) 5544375. For more information, see page 6.
Early Voting in City Hall: Beginning 29 days prior to each election, any
voter may vote at the Department of Elections on the ground floor of City
Hall. City Hall is accessible from any of its four entrances. The polling place
at City Hall has all of the assistance tools provided at polling places on
­Election Day. For more information, see page 6.
Access to the Polling Place: A “YES” or “NO” printed below the accessibility symbol on the back cover of this pamphlet indicates whether or not
your polling place entrance and voting area are functionally accessible.
If your polling place is not accessible and you would like the location of
the nearest accessible polling place within your district, please go to
sfelections.org/pollsite or call (415) 554-4375.
Accessible Voting Machine: Voters have the option to use an accessible
voting machine, available at every polling place. This machine allows voters
with sight or mobility impairments or other specific needs to vote independently and privately. Voters may vote using a touchscreen or audio ballot.
The machine will provide visual or audio instructions, including an indication of whether a contest uses ranked-choice voting. For ranked-choice
voting contests, the machine presents one list of all candidates, from which
voters may select up to three candidates in order of preference. After each
selection, there will be a visual or audio confirmation of the candidate’s
ranking. In accordance with Secretary of State requirements, votes from the
accessible voting machine will be transferred onto paper ballots, which will
38-EN-N14-CP15
General Information
15
be tallied at City Hall after Election Day. If you would like to use the accessible voting machine, please tell a poll worker the mode you prefer:
Touchscreen Ballot: Voters may make ballot selections using a touchscreen and review their selections on a paper record before casting
their vote. Large-print text is provided on the screen, and voters can
further increase text size.
Audio Ballot and Handheld Keypad: For audio voting, the accessible
voting machine is equipped with headphones and a Braille-embossed
handheld keypad with keys coded by color and shape. The voting
­machine provides audio instructions to guide you through the ballot.
Use the keypad to move through the ballot and make selections.
The machine has a feature for voters to connect a personal assistive
device such as a sip/puff device. The Department of Elections can also
provide multi-user sip/puff switches or headpointers at the polling
place in City Hall, or dispatch them to a polling place for Election Day.
To request that one of these devices be sent to your polling place,
please go to sfelections.org or call (415) 554-4375, preferably 72
hours prior to Election Day to help ensure availability and assist in
scheduling.
Other Forms of Assistance at the Polling Place:
Personal Assistance: A voter may bring up to two people, including
poll workers, into the voting booth for assistance in marking his or her
ballot.
Curbside Voting: If a voter is unable to enter a polling place, poll workers can bring voting materials to the voter outside the ­polling place.
Reading Tools: Every polling place has large-print instructions on how
to mark a ballot and optical sheets to magnify the print on the paper
ballot. The accessible voting machine provides large-print text on the
screen, and voters can further increase text size.
Seated Voting: Every polling place has at least one voting booth that
allows voting while seated.
Voting Tools: Every polling place has two easy-grip pens for signing
the roster and marking the ballot.
TTY (Teletypewriter Device): To reach the Department of Elections via
TTY, call (415) 554-4386.
58
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP58
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Answered by the Ballot Simplification Committee
Q: Who can vote?
A: U.S. citizens, 18 years or older, who are registered to
vote in San Francisco on or before the registration deadline.
Q: What is the deadline to register to vote or to update
my registration information?
A: The registration deadline is October 20, fifteen days
prior to Election Day.
Q: My 18th birthday is after the registration deadline but
on or before Election Day. Can I vote in this election?
A: Yes. You can register to vote on or before the registration deadline and vote in this election—even though you
are not 18 when you register.
Q: I have just become a U.S. citizen. Can I vote in this
election?
A: Yes.
• If you became a U.S. citizen on or before the registraQ: When and where can I vote on Election Day?
tion deadline (October 20), you can vote in this
A: You may vote at your polling place or at the Department
election, but you must register by the deadline;
of Elections on Election Day from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Your
• If you became a U.S. citizen after the registration
polling place address is shown on the back cover of
deadline but on or before Election Day, you may
your Voter Information Pamphlet. You can also find it
register and vote at the Department of Elections
at sfelections.org/pollsite or call (415) 554-4375. The
in City Hall before 8 p.m. on Election Day with proof
­Department of Elections is located in City Hall, Room 48.
of citizenship.
Q: Is there any way to vote before Election Day?
Q: I have moved within San Francisco but have not upA: Yes. You have the following options:
dated my registration prior to the registration deadline.
• Vote by mail. Fill out and mail the Vote-by-Mail ApCan I vote in this election?
plication printed on the back cover of this pamphlet,
A: Yes. You have the following options:
complete one online at sfelections.org/toolkit, or call
• Come to the Department of Elections in City Hall,
(415) 554-4375 to request to vote by mail. A vote-byRoom 48, on or before Election Day, complete a new
mail ballot will be sent to you. Your request must be
voter registration form and vote at the Department of
received by the Department of Elections no later than
Elections; or
5 p.m. on October 28, or
• Go to your new polling place on Election Day and
• Vote in person at the Department of Elections in
cast a provisional ballot. You can look up the address
City Hall, Room 48, beginning October 6 (see inside
of your new polling place by entering your new
back cover for dates and times).
home address at sfelections.org/pollsite, or call (415)
Q: If I don’t use an application or call, can I get a vote-by-
mail ballot some other way?
A: Yes. You can send a written request to the Department
of Elections. This request must include: your printed home
address, the address where you want the ballot mailed,
your birth date, your printed name, and your signature.
Mail your request to the Department of Elections at the
address on the back cover of this pamphlet or fax it to
(415) 554-4372. Your request must be received no later than
5 p.m. on October 28.
Q: If I was convicted of a crime, can I still vote?
A: If you have been convicted of a crime, California law
allows you to register and vote if:
• you were convicted of a misdemeanor (even if you
are currently in county jail, on probation, or on supervised release for that misdemeanor),
• your sentence for a felony conviction is suspended,
• you are on federal or state probation for a felony
conviction, or
• you have completed your felony sentence, including any period of parole, post-release community
supervision, mandatory supervision, or supervised
release for a felony conviction. In this case, you must
complete and return a voter registration form to
restore your right to vote. No other documentation is
required.
If you are awaiting trial or are currently on trial, but have
not been convicted, you may register and vote.
554-4375.
Q: I am a U.S. citizen living outside the country. How can
I vote?
A: You can register to vote and be sent a vote-by-mail ballot
by completing the Federal Post Card Application. Download
the application from fvap.gov or obtain it from embassies,
consulates or military voting assistance officers.
Q: What do I do if my polling place is not open on
Election Day?
A: Call the Department of Elections immediately at
(415) 554-4375 for assistance.
Q: If I don’t know what to do when I get to my polling
place, is there someone there to help me?
A: Yes. Poll workers at the polling place will help you, or
you may visit sfelections.org/toolkit or call the Department
of Elections at (415) 554-4375 for assistance on or before
Election Day.
Q: Can I take my Sample Ballot or my own list into the
voting booth?
A: Yes. Deciding your votes before you get to the polls is
helpful. You may use either a Sample Ballot or the Ballot
Worksheet in this pamphlet for this purpose.
Q: Do I have to vote on every contest and measure on the
ballot?
A: No. The votes you cast will be counted even if you have
not voted on every contest and measure.
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP87
87
Voter Bill of Rights
1. You have the right to cast a ballot if you are a valid
registered voter.
A valid registered voter means a United States
citizen who is a resident in this state, who is at least
18 years of age and not in prison or on parole for
conviction of a felony, and who is registered to vote
at his or her current residence address.
2. You have the right to cast a provisional ballot if
your name is not listed on the voting rolls.
3. You have the right to cast a ballot if you are present and in line at the polling place prior to the
close of the polls.
4. You have the right to cast a secret ballot free from
intimidation.
5. You have the right to receive a new ballot if, prior
to casting your ballot, you believe you made a
mistake.
If, at any time before you finally cast your ballot,
you feel you have made a mistake, you have the
right to exchange the spoiled ballot for a new
ballot. Vote-by-mail voters may also request and
receive a new ballot if they return their spoiled
ballot to an election official prior to the closing of
the polls on Election Day.
7. You have the right to return a completed vote-bymail ballot to any precinct in the county.
8. You have the right to election materials in another
language, if there are sufficient residents in your
precinct to warrant production.
9. You have the right to ask questions about election
procedures and observe the election process.
You have the right to ask questions of the precinct
board and election officials regarding election
procedures and to receive an answer or be directed
to the appropriate official for an answer. However,
if persistent questioning disrupts the execution of
their duties, the board or election officials may
discontinue responding to questions.
10. You have the right to report any illegal or fraudulent activity to a local election official or to the
Secretary of State’s office.
!
If you believe you have been denied any
of these rights, or you are aware of any
election fraud or misconduct, please
call the Secretary of State’s confidential toll-free
Voter Hotline at 1(800) 345-VOTE (8683).
6. You have the right to receive assistance in casting
your ballot, if you are unable to vote without
assistance.
Confidentiality and Voter Records
Safe at Home Program
Permissible Uses of Voter Registration
Information
Certain voters facing life-threatening situations may
qualify for confidential voter status. For more information, please contact the Secretary of State’s Safe at
Home program toll-free at 1(877) 322-5227, or visit the
Secretary of State’s website at sos.ca.gov.
Information on your voter registration form will be
used by election officials to send you official information on the voting process, such as the location of
your polling place and the issues and candidates that
will appear on the ballot. Commercial use of voter
registration information is prohibited by law and is a
misdemeanor. Voter information may be provided to
a candidate for office, a ballot measure committee, or
other person for election, scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purposes, as determined by the
Secretary of State. Driver’s license, state identification, and Social Security numbers, or your signature
as shown on your voter registration form, cannot be
released for these purposes. If you have any questions
about the use of voter information or wish to report
suspected misuse of such information, please call the
Secretary of State’s Voter Hotline: 1(800) 345-VOTE
(8683).
Any voter has the right under California Elections
Code Sections 9295 and 13314 to seek a writ of
mandate or an injunction, prior to the publication
of the Voter Information Pamphlet, requiring any
or all of the materials submitted for publication
in the Pamphlet to be amended or deleted.
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP223
223
Ballot Worksheet
Fill in your choices – Cut out and take with you to the polls
Not all voters are eligible to vote on all contests. Your sample ballot includes the contests
for which you are eligible to vote. For more information, see your sample ballot, page 16.
VOTER-NOMINATED OFFICES
Governor (Vote for one)
Lieutenant Governor (Vote for one)
Secretary of State (Vote for one)
Controller (Vote for one)
Treasurer (Vote for one)
Attorney General (Vote for one)
Insurance Commissioner (Vote for one)
Member, State Board of Equalization (Vote for one)
United States Representative (Vote for one)
Member of the State Assembly (Vote for one)
NONPARTISAN OFFICES
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Goodwin Liu (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1, Jim Humes (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 1, Kathleen M. Banke (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2, J. Anthony Kline (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2, Therese M. Stewart (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3, Stuart R. Pollak (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3, Martin J. Jenkins (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 4, Ignazio John Ruvolo (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 5, Mark B. Simons (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 5, Terence L. Bruiniers (Vote “Yes” or “No”)
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat No. 20 (Vote for one)
State Superintendent of Public Instruction (Vote for one)
Member, Board of Education (Vote for no more than three)
Member, Community College Board (Four-Year Term) (Vote for no more than three)
Member, Community College Board (Two-Year Term) (Vote for one)
BART Director (BART District 8 only) (Vote for one)
✂
(The ballot worksheet continues on the next page)
224
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP224
Note: Index appears on page 222.
(Ballot worksheet, continued)
Assessor-Recorder
Public Defender
Member, Board of Supervisors (even districts only)
First choice
First choice
First choice
Second choice
Second choice
Second choice
Third choice
Third choice
Third choice
(Rank up to three choices)
(Rank up to three choices)
(Rank up to three choices)
PROPOSITIONS
TITLE:
1: Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects.
2: State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
YES
NO
45: Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.
46: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute.
47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.
48: Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum.
A: San Francisco Transportation and Road Improvement Bond
B: Adjusting Transportation Funding for Population Growth
C: Children’s Fund; Public Education Enrichment Fund; Children and Families Council; Rainy Day Reserve
D: Retiree Health Benefits for Former Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency Employees
E: Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
F: Pier 70
G: Additional Transfer Tax on Residential Property Sold Within 5 Years of Purchase
H:
Requiring Certain Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields To Be Kept As Grass With No Artificial Lighting
I:
Renovation of Playgrounds, Walking Trails, and Athletic Fields
J:
Minimum Wage Increase
K:
Affordable Housing
L:
Policy Regarding Transportation Priorities
✂
NOTES:
General Information
38-EN-N14-CP185
185
You Can Stop Receiving this Paper Pamphlet
You have a choice of how to receive your Voter
Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot. State
and municipal laws now allow voters to “go green”
and stop receiving a Voter Information Pamphlet
and Sample Ballot by mail and read it online
instead.
!
To request that mail delivery of your Voter
Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot be
stopped, OR to resume mail delivery if you
previously had it stopped:
• Complete and mail this form, or
• Fill out the form at sfelections.org/gogreen.
Submit this form at least 50 days before an election in order for the change to take effect for
that election and onward. If the request is received after this deadline, the change will likely
take effect for the next election.
OPT OUT: Stop mail delivery of the Voter
Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot
OPT IN: Restart mail delivery of the Voter
Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot
Approximately 40 days prior to an election, your
Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot will
be available at sfelections.org/toolkit. At that time,
the Department will email a notification to the
address you have provided on this form. (If the
email address is invalid, we must resume sending
you the information by mail.)
If you previously opted out of receiving your Voter
Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot by mail,
you can restart mail delivery by submitting this
form at least 50 days prior to an election.
OPT OUT
I no longer want to receive my Voter Information
Pamphlet and Sample Ballot by mail. I’ll use the
online version instead.
OPT IN
I previously opted out of receiving my Voter
Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot by mail,
but I would like to start receiving it by mail again.
ALL FIELDS ARE REQUIRED.
Printed Full Name
Date of Birth (MM/DD/YYYY)
Residential Address (Number, Street, Apt./Unit, ZIP Code)
Email Address (name@domain.end) This email address will be kept confidential pursuant to California Government Code § 6254.4 and
✂
Elections Code § 2194, and legally may be provided to a candidate for office, a ballot measure committee, or other person for election, scholarly,
journalistic, political, or governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State.
SignatureDate
Mail this form to:
Department of Elections, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102.
36
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP36
Candidate Information
Notice about Candidate Statements of
Qualifications
Not all candidates submit a statement of qualifications. A complete list of candidates appears on the
sample ballot, which begins on page 16 of this
pamphlet.
!
Statements are printed as submitted
by the candidates, including any
typographical, spelling, or grammatical
errors. The statements are not checked for
accuracy by the Director of Elections nor any
other City agency, official, or employee.
Each candidate’s statement of qualifications, if any,
is volunteered by the candidate and printed at the
expense of the candidate.
Voluntary Spending Limits and State Legislative
Candidates’ Campaign Statements
In November 2000, California voters approved
Proposition 34, which states that if a candidate for
State Senate or State Assembly accepts voluntary
campaign spending limits specified in Section 85400
of the California Government Code, that candidate
may purchase the space to place a candidate statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet.
The legislative candidates who have accepted the voluntary spending limits and are therefore eligible to
submit a candidate statement for the November 4,
2014, Consolidated General Election are:
Member of the State Assembly, District 17
David Campos
David Chiu
Member of the State Assembly, District 19
Rene Pineda
Phil Ting
Party Endorsements
State law now allows political parties to endorse candidates for voter-nominated offices. The party endorsements received by the Department of Elections by the
submission deadline are as follows:
Attorney General
Republican Party: Ronald Gold
American Independent Party: Ronald Gold
Democratic Party: Kamala D. Harris
Governor
Republican Party: Neel Kashkari
Democratic Party: Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown
Insurance Commissioner
Republican Party: Ted Gaines
American Independent Party: Ted Gaines
Democratic Party: Dave Jones
Lieutenant Governor
Republican Party: Ron Nehring
Democratic Party: Gavin Newsom
Secretary of State
Republican Party: Pete Peterson
American Independent Party: Pete Peterson
Democratic Party: Alex Padilla
Controller
Republican Party: Ashley Swearengin
American Independent Party: Ashley Swearengin
Democratic Party: Betty T. Yee
Treasurer
Republican Party: Greg Conlon
Democratic Party: John Chiang
Member of the State Board of Equalization
Republican Party: James E. Theis
Democratic Party: Fiona Ma
United States Representative, District 12
Republican Party: John Dennis
Democratic Party: Nancy Pelosi
United States Representative, District 14
Republican Party: Robin Chew
Democratic Party: Jackie Speier
Member of the State Assembly, District 19
Republican Party: Rene Pineda
Democratic Party: Phil Ting
38-EN-N14-CP37
Candidate Statements
37
City and County of San Francisco Offices
To Be Voted on this Election
Assessor-Recorder
Member, Board of Education
The Assessor-Recorder decides what property in the
City is subject to property tax, and the value of that
property for tax purposes.
The Board of Education is the governing body for
the San Francisco Unified School District. It directs
kindergarten through grade twelve.
The term of office for the Assessor-Recorder is four
years. The Assessor-Recorder is currently paid
$182,175 per year.
The term of office for members of the Board of
Education is four years. They are paid $6,000 per
year.
Public Defender
There are seven members of the Board of
Education. Voters will elect three members in this
election.
The Public Defender represents some people who
cannot afford to pay their own lawyer. The Public
Defender represents: persons accused of crimes,
juveniles in legal actions, and persons in mental
health hearings.
The term of office for the Public Defender is four
years. The Public Defender is currently paid
$228,142 per year.
Member, Board of Supervisors
The Board of Supervisors is the legislative branch
of government for the City and County of San
Francisco. Its members make laws and establish the
annual budget for City departments.
The term of office for members of the Board of
Supervisors is four years. Supervisors are currently
paid $110,858 per year.
There are eleven members of the Board of
Supervisors. Voters in Districts 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 will
vote for their member of the Board of Supervisors
in this election.
Member, Community College Board
The Community College Board is the governing
body for the San Francisco Community College
District. It directs City College and other adult learning centers.
The term of office for members of the Community
College Board is four years. They are paid $6,000
per year.
There are seven members of the Community
College Board. In this election, voters will elect
three members to a regular four-year term. In addition, voters will elect one member to fill a vacancy
created in November 2013. The term of office for the
person elected to fill this vacancy will be two years,
which is the remainder of the current four-year
term.
38
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP38-16
Candidate for United States Representative, District 12
NANCY PELOSI
My occupation is Member of Congress.
My qualifications are:
Since coming to Congress, it has been my privilege
to represent San Francisco. Each year, the lessons
learned from our city inspire my work in our nation’s
capital.
San Francisco and California are prime examples of
progress, always leading the charge to build an economy that works for everyone. Our recent efforts include
job-creating investments in the Central Subway,
Transbay Terminal, Doyle Drive, and high-speed rail.
Our actions, along with others, have brought the
Presidio to self-sufficiency, supported institutions like
City College, and addressed the need for affordable
housing.
Since day one, the local, national, and global fight
against HIV/AIDS has been my priority. With Covered
California, hundreds of thousands of people are gaining coverage under the Affordable Care Act. With student loan reforms, our youth have a chance to attend
college. With Proposition 8 and the heart of DOMA
overturned, every family in our state can know the
blessings of equality under the law.
There’s still much more to do. For our economy, we
must adopt Democrats’ agenda – “When Women
Succeed, America Succeeds” – to ensure fair pay, paid
sick leave, and affordable child care. For our safety, we
must enact comprehensive gun safety legislation. For
our values, we must pass comprehensive immigration reform and make ENDA the law of the land. For
our democracy, we must reduce the role of money in
politics.
This is the work we must pursue together. This is why
I’m asking for your vote.
Thank you for the honor of serving in Congress.
Nancy Pelosi
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP38-30
Candidates for United States Representative, District 14
ROBIN CHEW
JACKIE SPEIER
My occupation is Business Owner / Entrepreneur.
My occupation is Congresswoman.
My qualifications are:
I’ve been an entrepreneur and business owner in the
Bay Area for over 30 years, first in high-tech advertising and for the past 16 years creating Internet-based
education. One of my primary roles has been applying computer and Internet technology to streamline
business operations, increase productivity and deliver
innovative products. This experience uniquely qualifies
me to bring much needed creative, “out-of-the-box”
thinking to the United States Congress.
My qualifications are:
Serving you in Congress has been an enormous
privilege. I continue to focus on our important needs:
jobs, deficit reduction, government accountability,
economic and community security. We must cancel
wasteful weapons systems, wipe out waste and fraud
in government programs, end our involvement in
Afghanistan, and restore timely access for veterans’
health care. I support a constitutional amendment to
deny members of Congress paychecks when the budget is late. Congress should be laser-focused on jobs.
I support funding research to ensure that the Bay Area
leads the globe in science and skilled jobs. I’ve hosted
Job Hunters Boot Camps for nearly 3000 constituents
so they can hone skills and find jobs.
At a time when America needs exceptional leadership,
Congress is a dysfunctional mess of pettiness and
polarization. This mind-set has to change. No single
group of people has a corner on good ideas. Only
when people work together in good faith and common
purpose are practical solutions found.
That’s why I’m running for Congress—certainly, to
make reforms and sponsor better policies, but also to
make what I believe is the most meaningful contribution possible; to work in a spirit of cooperation with all
my colleagues to shift the mindset of Washington DC
from partisan stalemate to practical problem-solving.
As your Congressman, my priorities will include working with my colleagues to renew our nation’s sagging
infrastructure, to reinvent the public education system,
to make sound defense and foreign policy, to institute
rational immigration reform, common sense regulatory reform, and responsible environmental policies.
I will bring the same level of commitment, determination and hard work to the Congress that I’ve given my
private sector endeavors.
Robin Chew
I’m working to keep our extraordinary community
colleges and universities affordable through student
grants and lower-interest loans. City College must
remain open. Tens of thousands of commuters take
Caltrain’s Baby Bullet trains that I helped create,
through $127 million in state funds, to relieve congestion. I will continue to hold PG&E accountable for
pipeline safety. Consumers must also be protected.
I will continue to fight against sexual assault in
the military and on college campuses, vote to end
employment and marriage discrimination, and protect
women’s health options. My office has recovered over
$3 million for disabled veterans who waited years for
benefits. We must never voucher Medicare or privatize
Social Security. Finally, we must address sea level rise
in our region.
I respectfully request your vote for an America that
delivers opportunity, not divisive rhetoric.
Jackie Speier
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP39-16
39
Candidates for State Assembly, District 17
DAVID CAMPOS
My occupation is San Francisco Supervisor.
My qualifications are:
I came from Guatemala at age fourteen, not speaking
English. I attended public schools and earned scholarships to Stanford and Harvard Law.
My husband Phil and I live in Bernal Heights. I have
served San Francisco as Deputy City Attorney, School
District General Counsel, and Police Commissioner.
As Supervisor since 2008, I’ve stood up for those who
need help the most:
• Established free Muni for 31,000 low-income youth
• Closed the health care loophole, bringing health
insurance to thousands of low-wage employees
• Prevented patient harassment at women’s heath
clinics
• Protected renters evicted under the Ellis Act, fought
for 50% affordable housing on public land, and
opposed demolition of 1,500 rent-controlled homes
• Secured $30 million for under-performing schools
• Promoted community policing, gang violence prevention, and gun buybacks
• Working to make pioneering HIV prevention medicine accessible to all at-risk San Franciscans
• Helped establish waterfront height limit protections
and local solutions to global warming
In the State Assembly, I will continue fighting for those
who are left behind. Please read my plan to strengthen
schools, increase affordable housing, combat global
warming, provide health care, and fight income
inequality at www.davidcampossf.com.
My supporters include:
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Assemblymember Phil Ting
California and San Francisco Teachers
California Nurses
Sierra Club
Equality California
San Francisco Women’s Political Committee
Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
San Francisco Latino Democratic Club
San Francisco Young Democrats
Chinese Progressive Association Action Fund
DAVID CHIU
My occupation is President of the Board of
Supervisors.
My qualifications are:
When I came to City Hall in 2008, after serving as a
civil rights attorney, criminal prosecutor, small business founder and neighborhood leader, I promised to
make government more functional by bringing people
together and solving problems.
As President of the Board of Supervisors, I have a long
record of delivering results:
• Championed policies bringing our city from doubledigit unemployment during the Great Recession
to one of the lowest unemployment rates in
California.
• Provided affordable housing for seniors, homeless
veterans and Ellis Act victims, fought for tenants,
legalized thousands of in-law units.
• Supported balanced, well-planned housing without
sacrificing San Francisco’s beauty and character.
• Made San Francisco more family friendly by securing funding for schools, afterschool programs and
child care, allowing parents with strollers to board
Muni buses, and giving parents and caregivers the
right to request flexible working arrangements with
employers.
• Balanced major budget deficits, championed
public safety and transportation, crafted innovative
environmental policies and strengthened ethics
standards.
Our California State Assembly needs bold and effective leadership. San Francisco currently faces an
affordability crisis for renters and homeowners.
It’s not enough to grandstand about our challenges.
San Franciscans need a practical problem solver
with a record of delivering results to fight for us in
Sacramento.
Join Senator Dianne Feinstein, Lieutenant Governor
Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Kamala Harris, SF
Firefighters, California School Employees Association,
Democratic Women in Action, League of Conservation
Voters, Bay Area Reporter, Alice B. Toklas Democratic
Club, SF Parent PAC, Supervisors Wiener, Kim and
Cohen, and others.
I’d be honored to have your vote.
VoteDavidChiu.com
David Campos
David Chiu
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP39-30
39
Candidates for State Assembly, District 19
RENE PINEDA
PHIL TING
My occupation is Systems Engineer.
My occupation is Assemblymember.
My qualifications are:
Let’s work together to make the Golden State, once
again, shine! As your assemblyman I will not allow
politicians in Sacramento to continue to punish hard
working Californians. The state legislature and governor have broken their promise not to increase taxes
without a public vote. As of January 1st we will be
paying 15 to 75 cents a gallon more at the pump.
My qualifications are:
Step by step we’re getting California back on the right
track. In my first term in the Assembly, I’m proud to
have:
As an immigrant who grew up in the Philippines, I
was able to attend an affordable city university. There I
earned a BS in Computer Engineering. We should prioritize creating the best opportunities for our children.
If a third world country can provide low cost educational opportunities, then we certainly can here.
High taxes and restrictive regulations are driving our
states employers to seek opportunities elsewhere;
taking good paying jobs with them. A lack of foresight has prevented the state from building necessary
reserves of water, in a state that is the nation’s largest
food producer. Sacramento has dropped the ball on
the economy. Californians need jobs, not handouts.
We don’t have a free-market. Regulations and lack
of foresight have driven the cost of energy, food,
and housing up disproportionally to wages and cost
California jobs. That is why California has the nation’s
highest rate of poverty. Let’s develop our domestic
energy resources, invest in water storage, invest in
education, and loosen regulation to allow Californians
a chance to take control of their own lives and prosper.
For more information about my candidacy visit
www.democracy.com/pinedare.aspx
Rene Pineda
Worked with the Governor and Assembly leadership
to pass our third and fourth straight on-time and balanced budgets while creating a rainy day fund.
Increased funding for our state’s public schools, colleges and universities while working every day to keep
City College open and funded.
Fought to make sure low-income students have equal
access to financial aid, reducing the cost of their higher education.
Passed historic legislation that will increase the supply
of food grown locally and sustainably, protecting our
environment and lowering water use.
Put Californians back to work by promoting local business partnerships and strengthening trade ties with
other nations.
Worked to protect Californians’ health by signing up
constituents for Covered California and sponsoring the
bill that will reduce the spread of HIV, Hepatitis and
other communicable diseases by increasing access to
clean syringes.
We’re making progress. But there is still important
work to do. That’s why I’m fighting to:
Protect tenants by bringing back the renters credit and
reforming state laws that allow wholesale evictions.
Promote the adoption of electric vehicles and solidify
the Bay Area’s role as the capital of EV innovation and
production.
Make government more responsive and transparent
by increasing opportunities for all residents to participate.
I’m proud to have the support of teachers, firefighters, nurses, and many others. I hope you will join us.
www.PhilTing.com
Phil Ting
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
40
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP40
Candidates for Judge of The Superior Court, Office No. 20
DANIEL FLORES
CAROL KINGSLEY
My occupation is Civil Rights Attorney.
My occupation is Mediator / Attorney / Arbitrator.
My qualifications are:
San Francisco’s strength lies in its sense of equality,
compassion, and diversity. I am running for judge to
help further these values.
My qualifications are:
The San Francisco Chronicle called me the “most
experienced and best qualified” for judge. Here’s why:
As a native San Franciscan, the son of Salvadoran
immigrants, and a U.S. Marine, I understand the value
of hard work and the importance of treating everyone
fairly.
In my career, I have had the privilege of representing
low-income tenants, homeowners, and businesses
alike, successfully handling hundreds of civil and criminal matters.
I am the only candidate who was deemed ‘Qualified’
to serve as judge, by the San Francisco Bar
Association.
I am honored to be endorsed by over 40 judges and a
diverse group of supporters:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
San Francisco Democratic Party
San Francisco Republican Party
San Francisco Green Party
Sierra Club, San Francisco Chapter
San Francisco Labor Council
San Francisco Police Officers Association
San Francisco Firefighters, Local 798
Bay Area Reporter
Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mark Leno, State Senator
Quentin Kopp, Former State Senator
Phil Ting, Assemblymember
Fiona Ma, Former Assemblymember
Art Agnos, Former Mayor
Jeff Adachi, Public Defender
David Chiu, President, Board of Supervisors
John Avalos, Supervisor
London Breed, Supervisor
David Campos, Supervisor
Malia Cohen, Supervisor
Mark Farrell, Supervisor
Jane Kim, Supervisor
Eric Mar, Supervisor
Scott Wiener, Supervisor
Norman Yee, Supervisor
www.DanielFloresForJudge.com
Experience in law:
• Three decades practicing law
• 10 years as professional mediator, resolving hundreds of cases in litigation
Experience in public service:
• San Francisco Ethics Commissioner, twice as Chair
• San Francisco Police Commissioner, reduced backlog of police misconduct cases
• President of San Francisco Women Lawyers
Alliance, Helped create children’s waiting room at
Hall of Justice.
Experience in life:
• In 1993, my husband Jack Berman was killed in
the 101 California mass shooting. Our son was 15
months old. I raised him as a single mother.
• Soon after, I helped form Legal Community Against
Violence, which helped pass thirty new state and
local gun laws.
Endorsers include:
• Current and retired Superior Court, California,
Federal and Administrative Law Judges (see website for full list)
• Queens Bench Bar Association
• Drucilla Stender Ramey, former Executive Director,
San Francisco Bar Association
• Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom
• Former City Attorney Louise Renne
• Former State Senator Carole Migden
• Christine Pelosi, Chair, California Democratic Party
Women’s Caucus*
• Police Commissioners Marshall, Turman, Loftus,
Mazzucco*
• San Francisco Women’s Political Committee
I am committed to deliver fair and impartial judicial
services to San Franciscans. I respectfully request your
vote.
Carol Kingsley
www.kingsley4judge.com
Daniel Flores
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP41
41
Candidates for Board of Education
STEVON COOK
LEE HSU
My occupation is Education Policy Advocate.
My occupation is Public School Parent.
My qualifications are:
As a native San Franciscan and graduate of SFUSD,
I have experienced what’s possible when education works for disadvantaged students. I grew up in
an unstable environment before moving in with my
grandparents at age ten. San Francisco public schools
were my safety net and allowed me to overcome tremendous adversities. As a result, I’ve committed my
professional career to San Francisco’s students, families and teachers.
My qualifications are:
Endorsers include:
Background:
• Senior Coordinator of College and Career
Programs, led strategies that significantly increased
college enrollment for low-income students of color
that attend San Francisco public schools.
• Board of Directors, San Francisco Achievers, a successful scholarship organization committed to sending African American male students that graduate
from San Francisco public schools to college.
• Former Co-Chair SFUSD Public Education
Enrichment Fund, Community Advisory Committee,
provided oversight of thirty million dollars in critical funds that support sports, libraries, and preschool.
• Academic Advisor, Thurgood Marshall High School,
supported hundreds of students and families ensuring they had the academic, socio-emotional and
financial support to thrive at school.
• BA Williams College
I support:
• Neighborhood schools because they strengthen
local communities and are better for the environment;
• More language-immersion, technology, and arts
programs in schools that need help.
Supporters:
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Public Defender Jeff Adachi
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor London Breed
Commissioner Matt Haney
Commissioner Kim-Shree Maufas
•
•
•
•
Assessor-Recorder Carmen Chu
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Katy Tang
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Hello. I am a candidate of change. I have fresh ideas
for quality schools in every San Francisco neighborhood.
I am an actual parent of two boys in public school. I
would bring a unique perspective as the only board
member with children in elementary school.
My own parents brought me to America to seek a better life. Thanks to public education and hard work, I
was lucky to graduate from Yale Law and Stanford. I
work in community management with GemShare. I
have worked in community development, law, technology, and finance. I want all our kids to have such
opportunities.
I get results. As President of the Greater West Portal
Neighborhood Association, I lead efforts in playground
and merchant district improvements. I created and
managed a successful after-school program featuring
arts and technology enrichment. I volunteer as a youth
sports coach, and tutor for low-income English Learner
students.
I will work hard for San Francisco. Thank you.
www.LeeHsu.com
Lee Hsu
Stevon Cook
www.stevoncook.com
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
42
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP42
Candidates for Board of Education
TREVOR MCNEIL
HYDRA MENDOZA
My occupation is Public School Teacher.
My occupation is School Board Member.
My qualifications are:
A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER FOR OUR PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
My qualifications are:
Our public schools provide the backbone of our city.
Help elect the first teacher to the Board of Education in
a decade!
As a third-generation public school teacher and native
San Franciscan I bring a special perspective to this
race: I have taught in schools in every San Francisco
neighborhood. Just like you, I want my children and
children in all of San Francisco’s diverse communities to enroll with confidence in great neighborhood
schools made possible by passionate teachers in safe
classrooms.
In addition to being the only public school teacher running, my qualifications include:
• Full-time teacher at a high-needs, bilingual school
• San Francisco Pedestrian Safety Advisory
Committee member
• Board member of my neighborhood association
• Volunteer tutor working directly with SFUSD students
• Vice-Chair of the San Francisco Central Committee
• Faculty leader of high school and middle school
LGBTQ groups and alliances
• Organizer working to support University of
California employees
• BA Carleton College, MA Tufts University, teaching
credential San Francisco State University
Please join a community of teachers, parents, and
a majority of the Board of Supervisors as well as
Assemblyman Phil Ting, and Assessor Carmen Chu in
supporting a teacher to serve on our school board!
I respectfully ask for your vote.
Trevor McNeil
They educate our future workforce. They inspire our
future innovators. They unlock the doors of opportunity for tens of thousands of children every year.
That’s why I have dedicated my professional life to
improving public education.
As a parent of two children in public schools, the
Education Advisor for two San Francisco mayors, and
a former preschool teacher, I have worked to build
coalitions around education-related issues within our
broader community.
During my tenure on the School Board, SFUSD has
consistently been the top-ranked urban school district
in California. Yet even with these successes, there are
areas where we can improve.
If elected, I will work to foster stronger parent engagement, promote early education, and increase partnerships to invest in our district. Most importantly, I will
continue to implement policies that prepare our students for the 21st Century economy.
My supporters include:
Gavin Newsom, Lt. Governor
Edwin Lee, Mayor
Carmen Chu, Assessor-Recorder
David Chiu, Board President
Mark Farrell, Supervisor
Jane Kim, Supervisor
Katy Tang, Supervisor
Sandra Lee Fewer, President of the School Board
Matt Haney, School Board Commissioner
Rafael Mandelman, City College Trustee
Steve Ngo, City College Trustee
www.HydraMendoza.com
Hydra Mendoza
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP43
43
Candidates for Board of Education
EMILY M. MURASE
My occupation is School Board Member / Executive
Director.
My qualifications are:
I am currently Vice President of the Board of
Education, serving 55,000 public school students and
their families. A proud SFUSD graduate, I am a parent
of two children in our public schools.
Despite severe budget cuts, our school district, with
its dedicated educators, remains a top performing
urban school district in the state and includes several
California Distinguished and National Blue Ribbon
Schools. Enrollment is increasing, graduation rates
are exceeding the state average, and suspensions are
down significantly. Importantly, our most recent financial audit had ZERO findings.
However, there is work to be done. We must better
support our underperforming students, while challenging high performers. We need to make our schools
free from bullying. We must connect students to
future careers. Visit, www.emilymurase.com for my
ABC agenda on Academic Achievement, Bullying, and
College and Career Ready Graduates.
My supporters include:
Congresswoman Jackie Speier
State Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee
State Senator Mark Leno
State Assemblyman Phil Ting
Assessor-Recorder Carmen Chu
District Attorney George Gascón
Public Defender Jeff Adachi
Board of Supervisors: President David Chiu, Eric Mar,
Katy Tang, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Scott Weiner
School Board Members: Jill Wynns, Kim-Shree
Maufas, Matt Haney, Rachel Norton
Emily M. Murase
MARK MURPHY
My occupation is Communications Consultant.
My qualifications are:
My extensive work to improve San Francisco schools
is driven by a passion to ensure all San Francisco students have access to a quality education.
• Co-Chairing the Public Education Enrichment Fund
Community Advisory Committee, I oversee an
annual $50 million San Francisco Unified School
District budget.
• Serving on the Mayor and Superintendent’s “Our
Children, Our City” Stakeholder Engagement
Committee, I participated in long term planning for
building a broad and lasting spectrum of support
for children and families in San Francisco.
• Participating in SFUSD’s Vision 2025 process with
parents and educators, I engaged in planning for
the future of educating San Francisco’s children.
• As a Human Rights Commission LGBT Community
Advisory Committee member I focused on youth
issues, working to strengthen anti-discrimination
programs in schools.
• Tutoring at-risk youth in math and science.
My priorities for San Francisco schools:
• Ensure effective implementation of new Common
Core state standards
• Academic equity for all students
• Technology parity at every school for every child
• Greater levels of professional development and
preparation time for all teachers
I am proud to be endorsed by the San Francisco
Parent Political Action Committee; State Senator Mark
Leno; Assessor-Recorder Carmen Chu; School Board
Commissioner Rachel Norton; teachers and education
advocates across San Francisco.
Mark4sfusd.com
Mark Murphy
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
44
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP44
Candidates for Board of Education
SHAMANN WALTON
My occupation is Executive Director, Young
Community Developers.
My qualifications are:
As a parent who has raised two children in the public
school system and a former teacher, I understand the
dedication required to ensure our children receive a
high-quality education. I’ve spent the past 17 years as
an advocate within local schools and youth-serving
organizations implementing programs in order to
make sure all students have the opportunity to succeed:
• Executive Director of Young Community
Developers, providing high-quality tutoring and job
training to hundreds of SFUSD students.
• Former teacher with Vallejo City Unified School
District and Solano County Office of Education.
• Board Member of San Francisco Parents for Public
Schools.
• SFUSD Quality Teacher Education Act Oversight
Committee Member.
• Former Director of Potrero Hill Family Resource
Center.
Supporters:
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom
State Senator Mark Leno
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Mayor Ed Lee
Board of Supervisors President, David Chiu
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor London Breed
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Jane Kim
Former Supervisor Bevan Dufty
Public Defender Jeff Adachi
Board of Education Commissioner Rachel Norton
Board of Education Commissioner Jill Wynns
Board of Education Commissioner Emily Murase
Board of Education Commissioner Hydra MendozaMcDonnell
Board of Education Commissioner Matt Haney
Parent PAC
JAMIE RAFAELA WOLFE
My occupation is School Administrator / Behaviorist.
My qualifications are:
As a school administrator, behaviorist, elementary
school teacher, tutor, youth group leader, and former
public school student myself, I am firmly committed
to providing equitable education to every child in San
Francisco.
I am an experienced educator, who offers fresh and
progressive ideas, a vibrant & passionate character to
see them through, and the will & purpose to work with
all parties to effect change.
My priorities on the Board of Education include:
• Ensuring equitable access to our public schools for
every child and participation in the school community for every family.
• The support and expansion of existing gardens and
the further establishment of organic gardens in all
of our public schools.
• Strict oversight of nutritional values in the foods
and beverages available in our public schools.
• Transparency and community involvement in matters brought before the Board.
• Advocacy for the distinct needs of children and
families involved in special education.
• Focus on increasing the technological infrastructure
in our public schools.
• Budget stability to continue summer school programs and increase teacher & paraprofessional pay.
I know working together, we can continue to see the
city we love grow through education and engagement
in learning.
Vote Wolfe on November 4th.
www.democracy.com/wolfe4ed
Jamie Rafaela Wolfe
Shamann Walton
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP45
Candidate Statements
Candidates for Board of Education
DENNIS YANG
My occupation is San Francisco Teacher.
My qualifications are:
• A San Francisco teacher my entire career
• Began teaching in 2000 at the SFUSD’s Lowell High
School
• Taught at the Urban School of San Francisco
• Created, developed, and successfully implemented
the Urban School of San Francisco’s first Chinese
language program
• Currently teaching at the Bay School of San
Francisco
• Tutored low-income and new immigrant students
of the SFUSD
• As a student, attended only SFUSD public schools
Education:
•
•
•
•
•
Spring Valley Elementary School
Marina Middle School
Lowell High School
UC Berkeley B.A.
SF State University M.A.
Why you should vote for me:
I am a San Francisco teacher and a proud product of
the SFUSD. I highly value education and families. I
work effectively and harmoniously on the frontlines
with students, parents, teachers, and administrators.
I will bring this ability to work effectively with all
groups to the School Board. With your support, we can
accomplish many great things that will benefit all our
students!
Endorsed by:
James Caldwell – former ten year veteran member of
the US Department of Education
www.democracy.com/dennisyang
yangeducationsf@gmail.com
Dennis Yang
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
45
46
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP46
Candidates for Community College Board – Four-Year Term
WENDY ARAGON
DAN CHOI
My occupation is Small Business Owner.
My occupation is Veteran / Activist.
My qualifications are:
City College of San Francisco is a vital part of the fabric of our community. The community college system
changed my life and afforded me a second chance
at a brighter future. I was raised in a working class
family and was a first generation college student.
When I started in coammunity college I did not have
confidence in my ability to succeed in higher education. Through essential support services like Extended
Opportunities Program and Services, and Disabled
Students Programs and Services, I realized my full
potential. I became an active student leader, elected
to represent over 20,000 students. I transferred to
San Francisco State University and majored in Urban
Studies, which motivated me to continue in public service for over 20 years.
My qualifications are:
As a gay soldier, I challenged the U.S. military’s “Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. I understand the importance
of leadership and integrity, especially during difficult
times.
I am currently a neighborhood leader in the Richmond
District, Chair of the Public Utilities Commission
Citizen’s Advisory Committee, and serve on the local
board for Girl Scouts of Northern California.
I hope to restore confidence in our City College system so that it can continue to empower and inspire all
residents.
When elected to the Board of Trustees I am committed
to:
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Restore Enrollment and Accreditation
• Clear Pathways to Jobs
• Preserve Affordability and Access for all Students
• Fair Wages and Conditions for all Employees
As a City College student, I have experienced firsthand the profound impact of our community college
system. Veterans, just like myself, come home to seek
the skills needed to obtain good jobs. A place like City
College is more than a school—it’s a home, and a new
start for many of us.
I promise to address the decline in student enrollment
while keeping CCSF at the cutting edge of education.
I will institute fiscal reforms to reduce inefficiency and
waste to make City College more effective.
I am endorsed by Supervisors Jane Kim and David
Campos at time of filing.
For more information about my candidacy, please
visit: www.pro-choi.com
Thank you.
Dan Choi
I believe in City College because community college
believed in me.
Wendy Aragon
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP47
47
Candidates for Community College Board – Four-Year Term
BRIGITTE DAVILA
ANITA GRIER
My occupation is Professor.
My occupation is Incumbent / Educator.
My qualifications are:
Access to higher education made a huge difference in
my life as well as the lives of thousands of students
I have mentored and taught over the years. This is
the reason I am running to serve on the City College
Board of Trustees: I want to ensure that access to higher education extends to all San Franciscans.
My qualifications are:
City College is the multi-racial heart and intellectual
soul of San Francisco and we’ll never let it close or be
lobotomized. Please join our fight to preserve affordable, accessible, life-long learning for everyone.
As the first in my family to go to college, community
college was the initial step in a journey that led me
to graduate from UC Berkeley. From teaching for 20
years at San Francisco State, I understand what it
takes for students of all backgrounds to thrive and
succeed.
I spent the last ten years advocating for quality public education at the local, state and national level. I
worked with legislators, faculty, staff, administrators
and students to pass legislation and push for budgets
that support public education.
Saving our City College is job #1. Restoring accreditation and stabilizing operations is my primary goal.
I will bring leadership, analytical and teamwork skills
to bear as I work to keep City College open, and
expand its promise of education for all.
For a list of endorsements, please go to
www.davila4citycollege.com
Brigitte Davila
I’ll never apologize for fighting for education for lowincome people.
I don’t apologize for supporting living wages for our
teachers and staff.
Nor do I apologize for supporting job security and
benefits.
Blaming teachers is not a solution. We deserve great
teachers, and to keep the best, we must be competitive.
I’m proud of the grassroots support that has coalesced
around this battle and most elected officials have
stepped up to stop the ACCJC’s undemocratic power
grab and its “Extraordinary Powers.” As Trustee I’ve
worked tirelessly to make the transition to higher educational institutions available for our students, so it’s a
battle I take personally.
Save City College! — it’s not perfect — but it’s a treasure we can continue to build on.
Start by signing up for a class!
Endorsements:
Jeff Adachi
Denise Deanne
Bevan Dufty
Espanola Jackson
Ross Mikarimi
Jane Morrison
Rodger Scott
Robert Varni
Anita Grier
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
48
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP48
Candidates for Community College Board – Four-Year Term
JOHN RIZZO
RODRIGO SANTOS
My occupation is President, College Board.
My occupation is Structural Engineer.
My qualifications are:
City College remains strong and MUST stay open.
My qualifications are:
CCSF is in crisis. We need leaders with commitment to
the students, experience in administration, and educational foresight to put CCSF on the right course and
make it a stronger institution for the future.
Under my leadership, City College has outperformed
most California community colleges in student success, with higher rates of completion in both college
preparation and remedial programs. My work saved
the school tens of millions of dollars through financial reform and streamlined management – further
strengthening City College’s future.
But despite many reforms, outside and unaccountable
bureaucrats continue to threaten City College. Their
overreach and conflicts of interest, as reported in the
press, are shocking. I will not allow an out-of-control
agency to jeopardize City College. I will continue to
fight for fair treatment for our students, faculty, and
staff.
The stakes are high. The innovative job training programs I helped create enable students to share in San
Francisco’s economic growth. I will continue to prioritize resources for classes and counseling over administrative overhead in order to provide students what
they need to succeed.
My supporters include:
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano
Assemblyman Phil Ting
Public Defender Jeff Adachi
Former Mayor Art Agnos
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Eric Mar
Jane Morrison, former women’s chair, California
Democratic Party
Jeanine Cotter, CEO Luminalt Energy
Sierra Club
Laborers Union, Local 261
My background and my successes in the private sector — as a Stanford University graduate and owner
of a structural engineering firm, Santos and Urrutia
— and the public sector — as the former president of
the Building Inspection Commission and member of
the Workforce Development Commission — make me
uniquely qualified to navigate CCSF through these
tough times.
As a CCSF Trustee, my first priority will be to the students — both current and future. We must take immediate action to regain trust and to show them that
CCSF is on a path to stability and longevity. I will build
on the positive budgetary decisions the administration
has instituted in recent months, while still providing
high levels of service to our students — especially
in the areas of technology. Working with the other
Trustees — especially the Special Trustee — I will
ensure that CCSF is operating effectively at all levels,
from planning to operation, from administration to
instruction. I hope to receive your vote November 4th.
Rodrigo Santos
www.johnrizzoforcollegeboard.com
twitter.com/john_rizzo
John Rizzo
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP49
Candidate Statements
49
Candidates for Community College Board – Four-Year Term
THEA SELBY
My occupation is Mom / Business owner.
My qualifications are:
My son’s Balboa High counselor urges students to
attend City College to reduce the skyrocketing cost of
a 4-year college education. Also at City College, immigrants find their path out of poverty; students learn
good-paying trades; seniors escape isolation.
We cannot let City College close.
I am a mother of two teens, a UC Berkeley graduate,
a small business owner, and a past City College student. I am ready to fight for the City College’s future to
ensure it’s accredited, financially stable and accessible.
My experiences as a former college instructor, my
skills gained as a community leader and a member of
the California High Speed Rail Authority Board, and
my knowledge gained as a scrappy small business
owner will help me be a good, hard-working member
of the Board. I will fight for the students and push for
fiscal responsibility.
The next two years are critical. We need a fresh board
with new ideas to make sure we get through restoration to accreditation.
Let’s get City College on track.
Endorsements include:
• Former Assemblywoman Fiona Ma
• Supervisors Scott Wiener, David Campos, London
Breed, Eric Mar, Mark Farrell, John Avalos
• Jill Wynns, Emily Murase, Board of Education
www.theaselby.org
Thea Selby
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
50
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP50
Candidates for Community College Board – Two-Year Term
DR. AMY BACHARACH
THOMAS MOYER
My occupation is Policy Researcher.
My occupation is Media Supervisor.
My qualifications are:
My goal is to ensure that City College remains available, accessible, and affordable for our community.
With the future of City College at stake, it’s critical that
we have an informed, accountable leader involved in
the process. I am that leader. I bring a fresh, pragmatic
approach to decision making and experience working
with the accrediting agency.
My qualifications are:
Like all San Franciscans, I want to see our City College
regain its fiscal credibility and increase the student
graduation rate as it is a cornerstone of our community. City College gives access to higher education that
many may be out of reach. As such, we can do better.
We should do better.
For nearly a decade I have determined how best to
measure data, implement evidence-based practices,
and make hard decisions. My experience as an adjunct
professor also brings a faculty perspective. As a
Trustee, I will focus on the stability of the institution
as a whole and ensure availability, accessibility, and
affordability by harnessing graduates’ success to create an alumni network and community partnerships to
increase opportunities.
I know firsthand how important higher education is for
creating opportunities. City College is often the entryway. My own experiences in community college and
higher education sparked my passion for education
policy and civic involvement.
I am energized and excited to bring my experiences to
City College and help make it a model for community
colleges.
I have been endorsed by many community leaders.
For a full list, visit www.amybacharach.com.
I have lived in San Francisco nearly ten years where I
earned my MBA from the University of San Francisco,
worked in digital media and technology, and started
a family in the Richmond District. Over those years,
I have been active member of the associations like
SFBIG (SF Bay Innovation Group), a group that has
partnered with the San Francisco Unified School
District to donate much needed computers to local
schools.
As a board member of AD2SF, we work with the advertising community to support non-profit organizations
that mentor students interested in creative, technology
and advertising. The organization also fosters diversity
panels and local LGBT events. Further, I play the role
as a speaker and educator at digital media conferences and a writer for digital publications.
I currently work as a Media Supervisor where I invest
my client’s marketing budget on advertising initiatives.
Thomas Moyer
I respectfully ask for your vote.
Amy Bacharach
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP51
Candidate Statements
51
Candidates for Community College Board – Two-Year Term
WILLIAM WALKER
My occupation is Counseling Services Assistant.
My qualifications are:
serving as student trustee, graduating CCSF, and
being hired at a neighboring community college in
student services. I clear students’ course prerequisites, perform high school outreach, and track student
retention. My division is developing an Early Alert
program to intervene when students are unsuccessful
and ensure that they achieve their goals. I would like
to combine my work experiences at my current job
with my successes as a student leader and organizer
at City College of San Francisco to further expand the
wonderful student services CCSF provides as well
as incorporate new strategies to close the academic
achievement gap ensure underrepresented students
can succeed.
I graduated from San Francisco public schools, served
on three nonprofit boards, and possess 15 years
of community organizing experience. My strength
is ensuring that all stakeholders are informed and
included at all levels of decision making. My outreach
efforts included co-moderating a Save CCSF Facebook
page and developing a blog that informed over 60,000
unique viewers.
My mom attended CCSF. I graduated CCSF. My children will attend CCSF. Vote William Walker for CCSF
Board of Trustees – a proven CCSF graduate, leader,
and supporter. You plus me equals Will Power!
William Walker
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
52
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP52-30
Candidates for BART Director, District 8
JAMES FANG
My occupation is BART Director.
My qualifications are:
I’m a San Francisco native running for reelection to
the BART Board. I grew up riding N-Judah, 38-Geary,
22-Fillmore, 30-Stockton, and all MUNI/BART lines. I
know San Francisco transit. I’m San Francisco’s most
experienced BART director.
I make sure BART works for San Francisco:
• Contributing over $10,000,000 to MUNI since 2010
• Fast Pass BART fare in SF only .39¢ daily
• 62.5% BART fare discounts for seniors, youth,
disabled
• Clipper Card integrating BART/MUNI
• Enforcing sit-lie station law thru police/social
workers
• Connecting Silicon Valley, 49ers/Super Bowl
Stadium in 2015
• Top Bay Area transit agency – 95% on-time;
most bike-friendly
NICK JOSEFOWITZ
My occupation is Clean Energy Entrepreneur &
Environmental Advocate.
My qualifications are:
Are you happy with your public transportation? I’m
not.
Did your BART Directors show leadership to prevent
the strikes? No.
San Francisco deserves a world-class transportation
system. It’s time for a change.
I founded a successful clean energy company that
built over $100 million of solar power plants and
brought clean power to thousands of families.
Mayor Ed Lee appointed me to San Francisco’s
Environment Commission to help make our city more
sustainable and affordable
We deserve a new BART Director who will:
• SHOW UP to all BART Board meetings
• STAND UP to contractors who give money to corrupt BART Directors in exchange for fat contracts
I will keep leading at BART to:
• INVEST IN SAN FRANCISCO, rather than send our
money to Pleasanton and Antioch
• Increase coordination with MUNI transfer points
As your BART Director, I would:
• Increase funding from BART to MUNI
• RESOLVE LABOR NEGOTIATIONS before they
devolve into another strike
• Install up to 1,000 new cars starting 2016 - $3 billion upgrade
• Engage community on BART to Ocean Beach
• RUN MORE TRAINS MORE OFTEN, and through the
night on weekends
• CLEAN UP OUR BART STATIONS
Please join fellow San Franciscans supporting my
BART reelection:
• BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING on BART property House Democratic Leader Pelosi; Lt. Gov. Newsom;
Attorney General Kamala Harris; Board Equalization
candidate Fiona Ma; Public Defender Adachi; California
Democratic Party Chair John Burton; Former U.S.
Secretary of State George Shultz; Chinese American
Democratic Club; San Francisco Police Officer
Association; Firefighter Association; BART SEIU 1021
Local
Join San Francisco leaders who’ve endorsed my
campaign, including:
Fang4Bart.com
James Fang
The Sierra Club
Former Mayor Art Agnos
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor Eric Mar
State Senator Quentin Kopp
BART Director Tom Radulovich
Former Director, Department of the Environment
Melanie Nutter
Nick Josefowitz
www.getSFmoving.com
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP53
Candidate Statements
Candidate for Assessor-Recorder
CARMEN CHU
My occupation is San Francisco Assessor-Recorder.
My qualifications are:
I have been honored to serve as your AssessorRecorder for the last 18 months. The work my office
does helps generate over one-third of San Francisco’s
General Fund revenue--which supports critical services
like fire, police, health services, schools, programs
for children and seniors, and neighborhood improvements.
I am committed to strengthening the relationship
between local government and its taxpayers by modernizing the Assessor-Recorder’s office, establishing fair and accurate assessments, and prioritizing
customer service. Results so far include, launching a
new paperless recording process, creating an online
Change of Address form for taxpayers, introducing
new online software for business owners to file their
property statements, successfully securing resources
to improve our work and welcoming same-sex couples
into our office to record their marriage licenses beginning on June 28, 2013.
I am endorsed by US Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Lieutenant Governor
Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Kamala Harris,
Controller John Chiang, Board of Equalization Member
Betty Yee, State Senator Mark Leno, Mayor Ed Lee,
District Attorney George Gascón, Treasurer Jose
Cisneros, and San Francisco firefighters and police.
I ask for your support to continue my service to
San Francisco residents.
www.carmenchu.org
Carmen Chu
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
53
54
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP54
Candidate for Public Defender
JEFF ADACHI
My occupation is Public Defender.
My qualifications are:
I have been honored to serve as your Public Defender
for the past twelve years. Each year, the office and
its dedicated staff helps over 20,000 San Franciscans
obtain justice in the courts, and uphold our nation’s
Bill of Rights and Constitution.
I am proud that our office is considered one of the
best in the country. We have implemented effective
managerial and staff support, caseload and workload
standards to ensure superior legal outcomes, cuttingedge technology, and training that embeds our staff
with the highest standards of excellence.
I have also worked to improve the quality of life for
all San Franciscans, by providing innovative community programs and reforms that prevent crime.
Our Clean Slate and prisoner reentry programs have
helped thousands of people turn their lives around.
Our award winning juvenile justice programs, including MAGIC and Legal Education Advocacy Program
(LEAP), keep kids in school.
We have received top national, statewide and local
awards from the American Bar Association, the
National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the
California Public Defenders Association, the SF
Lawyers’ Committee, and the Mayor’s Fiscal Advisory
Committee’s Managerial Excellence Awards.
I greatly appreciate your vote and support.
For more information, visit www.jeffadachi.com.
Thank you.
Jeff Adachi
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP55-09
55
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 2
JUAN-ANTONIO CARBALLO
MARK E. FARRELL
My occupation is Inventor / Technology Executive.
My occupation is District 2 Supervisor.
My qualifications are:
I’m a 10-year resident of District 2. My children were
born and raised here. I’m an avid bicycle and train
commuter. Everyday, I see San Franciscans endure a
government that cannot meet today’s transportation,
education, and affordability challenges.
My qualifications are:
It is my honor to serve as your Supervisor, representing the neighborhoods of District 2 and working to
create jobs, improve our parks, enhance public safety
and keep families in San Francisco.
San Francisco sits at the center of global innovation,
but our government still uses last-century’s infrastructure. We should be the world’s most innovative
city, with creative leaders who improve people’s lives
through responsive and transparent government, and
embrace technology for social good.
I have spent my adult life as an innovator, helping create solutions in diverse areas from communications to
clean energy. As Supervisor, I will lead efforts to:
Modernize transportation: shape a customer-driven
Muni, accelerate zero-fatalities in District 2 to 2018,
and aggressively apply technology to improve safety
and circulation for ALL.
Make government citizen-first: leverage technology
to provide instant, all-mobile access to city services,
real-time data analysis for reduced costs; and zeropaperwork by 2020.
Drive public-private partnerships: reinforce the local
character of District 2’s commercial areas, and proactively connect the business and technology community with schools.
As Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, I have
prioritized protecting our City’s fiscal health, significantly reducing our budget deficit while doubling our
reserves. I authored and supported economic policies
that have led to historic low unemployment rates, and
directed the successful effort to solve San Francisco’s
$4.4 billion unfunded retiree healthcare liability.
To increase public safety in our neighborhoods, I created a down-payment assistance program for first
responders, and secured new funding for additional
fire and police academy classes. I have recently led
efforts to tackle homelessness and improve access to
mental health services across our City.
To help families stay in San Francisco, I am working to
create a new 4.5 acre park in the heart of Russian Hill.
I also created the Shared Schoolyards Project to open
public schoolyards on the weekends, and supported
legislation to protect rental housing stock.
I respectfully ask for your vote and support to continue
working to improve the quality of life in District 2 and
throughout San Francisco.
Mark Farrell
Thank you for your consideration.
Juan-Antonio Carballo
www.carballo2014.com
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP55-24
Candidate Statements
Candidate for Board of Supervisors, District 4
KATY TANG
My occupation is Incumbent, District 4 Supervisor.
My qualifications are:
As Supervisor, I’m working to improve quality of life
for residents, spearheading the first ever district-wide
strategic planning effort, the Sunset District Blueprint,
to identify short and long-term initiatives to improve
the neighborhood.
I’m working to implement pedestrian safety improvements along key corridors, and am leading the effort
to pass a Transportation Bond measure to provide
funding for infrastructure improvements to our public
transportation system - without raising taxes.
I sponsored successful legislation to provide additional enforcement tools to shut down massage
establishments serving as potential fronts for human
trafficking, and work with the SF Collaborative Against
Human Trafficking, to end human trafficking through
education, outreach, and advocacy.
My office launched the Front Yard Ambassador
Program to assist residents with front yard landscaping, diverting 30,000 gallons of rainwater from our
sewer system in the first phase.
I’m working to address housing challenges by identifying opportunity sites in the Sunset.
I work closely with the Ocean Beach Master Plan committee to implement recommendations for a more
sustainable future for Ocean Beach.
I grew up in the Sunset and am proud of the work we
are accomplishing together to improve the quality of
life for all Sunset residents.
www.katytang.com
Katy Tang
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
55
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP55-13
55
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 6
JANE KIM
MICHAEL NULTY
My occupation is San Francisco Supervisor.
My occupation is Non-Profit Executive Director / Editor.
My qualifications are:
Over the past four years, it has been an honor to serve
you on the Board of Supervisors.
My qualifications are:
• Born and raised in San Francisco
• Co-Founder of Larkin Street Youth Center
• SF Health Department Former Employee
• St. Anthony Foundation Senior Housing
Development Advisory Member
• Planned 3 Community Benefit Districts
• Alliance for a Better District 6 President
• Tenant Associations Coalition of San Francisco
Director
• Central City Extra Newspaper Editorial Board
• Community Organizer
• SF Examiner “Community Hero”
When I first took office, I immediately set out to make
good on my pledge to you—to make our neighborhoods safer, healthier, and stronger.
As your Supervisor, I fought to open a police sub-station on 6th Street that has made our streets safer. We
passed legislation to spur positive growth along the
mid-Market corridor, which has greatly improved the
area, and enacted a Vision Zero policy aimed at reducing traffic fatalities over the next 10 years.
My office has also worked to implement a forwardlooking strategy to ensure a minimum of 30% affordability in new San Francisco development, including
anti-displacement efforts for non-profits and small
businesses.
But there is more work to do. That’s why I’m running
for re-election, and asking for your vote.
My supporters include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mark Leno, State Senator
Ed Lee, Mayor
Art Agnos, Former Mayor
Carmen Chu, Assessor-Recorder
John Burton, California Democratic Party Chairman
Phil Ting, Assemblymember
Supervisors: John Avalos, David Campos, David
Chiu, Eric Mar, Katy Tang, Norman Yee
• School Board Members: Sandra Lee Fewer, Matt
Haney, Hydra Mendoza-McDonnell, Rachel Norton
www.janekim.org
Jane Kim
Priorities:
Appropriate infra-structure; diversity in the housing
stock, bicycle/pedestrian friendly streets, develop a
Master Plan benefiting residents.
Improve police/community relations and involve the
community in planning for neighborhood services and
amenities. Fully staffing the SFPD.
Fix our transit system through adequate funding and
expanding the bike network
Increase Open Space and plan Sustainable neighborhoods
Access to High Quality Health Care
Treasurer Island residents need protections
Promote tourism, nightlife, and new jobs in District 6
Stop our representatives from pandering to the big
monies interests and political issue junkies that dominate their agenda.
Supporters:
Jerel Banks
Curtis Bradford
Susan R Bryan
Gilbert Criswell
George E. Dias
Denise Dorey
Edward G. Evans
Amos Lee Gregory
Marilyn J. Isabell
Dennis Isner
Reginald Meadows
Marvis J. Phillips
Charles Pitts
Antoinetta Stadlman III
Luke Thomas
http://www.electmichaelnulty.com/
(415) 289-2024
Michael Nulty
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
56
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP56-13
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 6
DAVID CARLOS SALAVERRY
JAMIE WHITAKER
My occupation is Independent Contractor.
My occupation is Tax Revenue Analyst.
My qualifications are:
As a native San Franciscan, educated in public
schools, I am the parent of two UC students and a
lifelong renter. For 35 years I’ve met payrolls, working
with my hands as a licensed cabinetmaker-contractor.
I also drive an Uber. I understand the day-to-day challenges and dreams of San Franciscans. I live them.
My qualifications are:
Since moving downtown 7 years ago, I’ve advocated
for our community’s health, safety, and livability
through civic engagement and blogging at
www.RinconHillSF.org.
I am not a politician. I am an activist citizen, opposed
to elitism, partisanship and ideological excess. Our
politics are diverse, but we must be San Franciscans
first to restore our special City and our Golden State.
There are many issues in District 6.
In the Tenderloin where I live, homelessness, substance abuse and poverty are unresolved issues.
Despite decades of “good intentions” the problems
persist. In SoMa where my cabinet & fixtures work
space is located, we need smart housing policies, citizen oversight of the waterfront and a mix of tech and
light manufacturing jobs.
City-wide, we need working class jobs. My SFCityTNC proposal will create 10,000 full time, high paying
citizen-owned jobs.
Please visit www.davidcarlos2014.com and take a look
around. And email me through my website, I’ll always
personally respond.
You have an alternative in San Francisco.
David Carlos Salaverry
Deadly community health issues identified by San
Francisco’s Department of Public Health (DPH) are
being ignored in favor of economic growth. The
exploitation needs to stop. Our health is NOT for sale!
I will prioritize (www.ElectJamie.com/Priorities):
• Reducing traffic congestion and air pollution
• Protecting community health
• Increasing public safety
• Ensuring socially equitable distributions of City
services
Fresh ideas (www.ElectJamie.com/FreshIdeas):
• Require Planning Department to partner with
epidemiologists and utilize
www.SustainableCommunitiesIndex.org to
measure potential harms to our health from
cumulative impacts of proposed developments.
• Treasure Island’s only safe use is for clean power
solar panels and windmills.
• Increase SFPD police officers patrolling downtown.
• Install digital sensors for real-time monitoring of
transportation problems.
• More recreational open space and street benches.
• Fund the Port with General Fund revenues.
• Utilize behavioral economics to reduce traffic
congestion.
Bio Highlights (www.ElectJamie.com/Bio):
2011-Present, Property Tax Manager, City and County
of San Francisco
2006-2010, Public Finance Investment Consultant,
PFM Asset Management
Education:
2004 MBA, Michigan State University
1994 BA in Economics, University of Michigan
Breathe Easier — Vote Whitaker!
Jamie Whitaker
www.ElectJamie.com
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP55-16
55
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 8
TOMMY BASSO
GEORGE DAVIS
My occupation is Self Employed.
My occupation is Writer.
My qualifications are:
My name is Tommy Basso and I want to represent you
as District 8 Supervisor. I am a Fourth generation San
Franciscan and have experienced the growth and evolution of the city.
My qualifications are:
I have been a San Francisco resident over four
decades and am well-acquainted with many San
Francisco neighborhoods. I am familiar with San
Francisco urban transportation and planning issues. I
use MUNI, BART, bicycles, and rental cars.
Having been raised in such a diverse city has given
me the benefit of relating to people from all walks of
life and recognizing their strengths and struggles.
I am a business owner and understand the importance
of our local economy. Local businesses are important
as they provide jobs and pay taxes. We must take
care of our community, thereby supporting the workers and taxpayers. I seek restoration of our District
through application of strategies I’ve gained from life
experience to encourage citizens to succeed. In addition, expansion of job opportunities can curtail the
impact of the recession.
We need wages consistent with inflation, business
growth, safer neighborhoods, cleaner environments,
and improved schools. We must work together to
accomplish our goals.
Since I’m the owner and operator of three local businesses, I’m a great problem solver and posses excellent interpersonal skills.
Tell me your concerns and complaints so that I may
adequately address and represent your needs. I would
be proud to be “your voice”, District 8.
Tommy Basso
I have sent children through schools of the San
Francisco Unified School District. I know from personal experience the strengths and weaknesses of the
city’s educational system.
I am an active promoter of effective public health and
safety. I do volunteer work with NERT, a disaster auxiliary to the San Francisco Fire Department.
I have written several books; including NAKED YOGA
and WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION, and am a contributing editor to the eBook FREE YOUR BODY, FREE
YOUR MIND!
I am a civil rights activist with the ACLU and Amnesty
International. Globally, many people know me for
my work promoting freedoms of artistic and political expression, and for my opposition to political and
media censorship.
I am an active participant in the Occupy Movement
and support this movement’s ideas for redistribution
of political and economic power from the “1% elite” to
the middle classes.
In this, my third campaign for political office, I know
“the third time is the charm” – as it was for Harvey
Milk.
George Davis
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
56
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP56-16
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 8
JOHN NULTY
MICHAEL PETRELIS
My occupation is Community Organizer.
My occupation is Gay Housing Blogger.
My qualifications are:
• Fourth Generation San Franciscan
My qualifications are:
My life-partner Mike Merrigan and I have been renters
since 1996. District 8 has been hard-hit by Ellis Act and
Owner Move-In evictions. We fear the tech boom jeopardizes the housing of too many of us. As a candidate
for District 8 Supervisor, I support the following:
• Public Safety
• Housing- Affordable housing and home ownership
• Muni - Improving transit service
• Civil Rights
• Accessible Health Care for All
• Preserve infrastructure and maintaining the integrity of our neighborhoods by support family businesses not chain stores.
• Reform and ethics laws, open government to citizen
scrutiny
• Search for creative solutions to keep city county
budget honest.
• Improve City Services to cost effective government
• Return San Francisco to clean, safe, friendly and fiscally sound city.
• Vote for John Nulty District 8 Supervisor!
415-820-3937
www.electjohnnulty.com
John Nulty
Expand rent control to all housing built after 1978,
Require developers to sell or rent 25% of units in new
buildings at below market rates,
Increase funding for Community Land Trusts to create
affordable housing.
At City Hall, we must:
Establish monthly Question Time by citizens of
Supervisors,
Strengthen public records access and the Sunshine
Ordinance Task Force,
Create one website where all elected officials post
monthly calendars, expense and travel reports,
Reclaim public plazas for all citizens,
Audit every nonprofit receiving City funds especially
HIV/AIDS groups,
End tax exemptions for profitable tech companies,
Charge Google buses appropriate fees,
Develop social programs for LGBT seniors, reopen gay
bathhouses,
Allow voters to cast ballots for None of the Above
every election.
A vote for me is a protest against gentrification, corporate and development greed. Together, let’s reclaim
San Francisco for all people, not just the wealthy.
Act up! Fight back! Love life!
Michael Petrelis
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP57-16
Candidate Statements
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 8
SCOTT WIENER
My occupation is Member, Board of Supervisors.
My qualifications are:
I’m honored to represent our neighborhoods at City
Hall. I work hard to earn that public trust.
I’ve secured various quality of life improvements for
our district:
• Championing the Castro Street sidewalk project
and moving it forward
• Authoring legislation to save the Noe Valley
Farmers Market by purchasing the site to turn it
into a town square
• Keeping Dolores Park and Glen Canyon renovations
on track
• Obtaining funds to complete the greening of the
Guerrero Street medians and replace the George
Christopher Playground in Diamond Heights
I focus everyday on our housing crisis: delivering
funding for affordable housing, passing legislation to
create housing that meets our needs, and supporting
rent control.
I fight to improve Muni’s reliability, hold Muni accountable for performance, and oppose raids on Muni’s
funds. I lead on transit issues locally and regionally.
I lead efforts to improve our streets through repaving
and pedestrian safety improvements.
I protect HIV services in our city budget, including
backfilling federal HIV cuts.
I strongly support funding police academy classes,
which are growing our understaffed police department.
I deliver for our seniors, at-risk youth, and public
schools.
I ask for your support to continue improving San
Francisco’s future for everyone.
www.scottwiener.com
Scott Wiener
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
57
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP55-05
55
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 10
MALIA COHEN
ED DONALDSON
My occupation is Member, Board of Supervisors.
My occupation is Affordable Housing Professional.
My qualifications are:
I’m a native San Franciscan who has been an effective legislator on the Board of Supervisors, fighting
to keep our Southeastern neighborhoods working,
affordable, healthy, and safe. Since being elected I
have:
My qualifications are:
District 10 needs true leadership that is capable of
balancing the needs of its people with business since
the level of income inequality has reached epidemic
proportion. At threat is the fabric and character of San
Francisco since we have the fastest growth rate of
income inequality in the country.
• Championed the development of affordable housing for seniors and families
• Established a mandatory mediation program to
ensure foreclosure victims have legal support
• Broke ground on rebuilding public housing, opened
libraries and renovated parks
• Spearheaded landmark legislation to toughen regulations on guns and lethal ammunition to curb violence
• Toughened enforcement standards on blight and
substandard housing
• Created and protected local jobs in construction
and manufacturing
• Secured funding to stop domestic violence,
increased healthy food options and expanded language access services
• Supported free Muni for youth and fought to secure
more funds for Muni service
• Fought poorly planned development projects and
sponsored legislation giving residents more say in
neighborhood planning
Working with community partners, I have raised capital for a stabilization fund that have helped numerous
residents in District 10 save their homes from foreclosure through buying the home and restructuring
the financing to ensure the home is affordable to the
residents.
Leadership is bringing people together to find common ground and if, elected District 10 Supervisor I
pledge within my first 120 days to convene a monthly
resident’s council to remain abreast of the concerns of
each neighborhood.
Having successfully raised three college educated children into young adulthoods in San Francisco, I pledge
to continue to use my voice to advocate for quality
schools in every neighborhood, including District 10
since our children are our most valuable resources.
If, I am not your first place selection then I humbly ask
that you make me your second or third place vote.
Endorsed by SF Rising Action Fund
Thank You,
Ed Donaldson
Supported by: Congresswoman Jackie Speier,
Attorney General Kamala Harris, Senator Mark Leno,
CA Democratic Party Chairman John Burton, Mayor Ed
Lee, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Former Speaker Pro
Tempore Fiona Ma, Firefighter’s Local 798, Assessor
Recorder Carmen Chu, and Supervisors David Chiu,
Scott Wiener, Eric Mar, Katy Tang, and London Breed
Malia Cohen
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
56
Candidate Statements
38-EN-N14-CP56-05
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 10
TONY KELLY
My occupation is Business Owner / Director.
My qualifications are:
Our district is ground zero for San Francisco’s toughest
issues. We have the city’s worst unemployment, child
mortality, and violent crime. We must dramatically
improve our city’s schools, job opportunities, environmental justice, affordable housing, and transit.
This requires leadership that listens and works with
the community first — not the lobbyists, developers,
and corporate interests at City Hall.
I’ve lived in District 10 since 1994. My leadership experience includes being elected nine times as President
of the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association,
serving at the Potrero-Dogpatch Merchants Association
and Enola Maxwell Middle School, and working on
critical district-wide task forces and advisory boards to
the Mayor, the Port, and the Board of Supervisors.
As Supervisor, I will be a responsive and accountable
leader working directly for you on the issues that matter most.
Please join my endorsers:
San Francisco Rising
Judy Berkowitz, President, Coalition for San Francisco
Neighborhoods*
Marsha Pendergrass Maloof, President, Bayview Hill
Neighborhood Association*
J.R. Eppler, President, Potrero Boosters Neighborhood
Association*
Cindy Choy, Visitacion Valley community organizer
Former Mayor Art Agnos
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor David Campos
SHAWN M. RICHARD
My occupation is Executive Director - Brothers Against
Guns.
My qualifications are:
I am a dedicated single father who resides in San
Francisco’s Bayview Hunters Point with my three
daughters. I am a determined advocate who has
dedicated his life to public service. As the Founder,
Executive Director of a nonprofit organization that
started to abate violence. I possess a unique quality of
working with youth and families in our communities
bring people together to become part of the solutions.
I am a product of San Francisco Public Unified School
District. I attended San Francisco State University
majoring in Criminology with an emphasis on Public
Administration. I received many awards over the last
20 years as the ED of B.A.G. I was appointed to the
Juvenile Probation Commission & the Delinquency
Prevention Commission; I was President of both
Commissions.
In 1999, I implemented and taught a Stop the Violence/
No bullying class that was taught throughout the SF
school district. In 2001, I organized and started the SF
Equal Housing Right Coalition for low Income families. I have a long history of dedication to the San
Francisco Community.
As District 10 Supervisor I will work towards a better
community.
Shawn M. Richard
I respectfully ask for your vote.
www.tonykelly2014.com
Tony Kelly
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP57-05
Candidate Statements
Candidates for Board of Supervisors, District 10
MARLENE TRAN
My occupation is Volunteer Community Organizer.
My qualifications are:
Formerly Mayoral Appointee to the Immigrant Rights
Commission.
Excellent track records from 20 years as a grassroots
advocate and 30 years of teaching at CCSF/ SFUSD,
I have addressed:
• PUBLIC SAFETY-- Neighborhood safety continues
to be my priority. I’ve convened many community
safety meetings. Currently a SFPD Community
Advisory Board member.
• HOUSING – Will fight for affordable housing and
home ownership opportunities in our emerging
district.
• JOB OPPORTUNITIES/ GREEN JOBS – Initiated
surveys & extensive meetings with CCSF resulted
in job training classes. Environmentally-friendly/
green technology developments can distinguish our
District’s new focus.
• NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS / CCSF programs – As a retired educator, I will fight for quality education for children, youth and residents. Received
3,000 signatures of petition support to convert the
Cow Palace to a YOUTH PALACE.
• FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & EFFECTIVE BUDGETING
– Hard-earned taxpayers’ money should be carefully monitored to maximize citizens’ benefits.
• MUNI – MTA recognized me for my 5,000 signature
petition that extended the 8X to seven-day services.
As a long-time Muni rider, I will work to improve
public transportation services.
• LANGUAGE ACCESS – In response to D10 demographics, institutionalized language access is
important for an integrated community.
I respectively request your votes.
Marlene Tran
Statements are volunteered by the candidates and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Statements are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
57
Local Ballot Measures
38-EN-N14-CP59
59
Local Ballot Measure and Argument Information
Digest and Argument Pages, Legal Text
Proponent’s and Opponent’s Arguments
The Ballot Simplification Committee has prepared a
digest for each local ballot measure. A statement by
the City Controller about the fiscal impact or cost of
each measure and a statement of how the measure
qualified to be on the ballot are also included. Arguments for and against each measure follow the digest.
The legal text for all local ballot measures begins on
page 186.
For each measure, one argument in favor of the
measure (proponent’s argument) and one
argument against the measure (opponent’s
argument) are printed in the Voter Information
Pamphlet free of charge.
The designations “proponent’s argument” and
“opponent’s argument” indicate only that the
arguments were selected in accordance with criteria
in Section 540 of the San Francisco Municipal
Elections Code and printed free of charge.
Selection of Proponent’s and Opponent’s Arguments
The proponent’s argument and the opponent’s argument are selected according to the following priorities:
Proponent’s Argument
Opponent’s Argument
1. The official proponent of an initiative petition; or
1. In the case of a referendum, the person who
2. The Board of Supervisors, or any member
2. The Board of Supervisors, or any member
3. The Mayor.
3. The Mayor.
4. Any association of citizens, combination of voters
4. Any association of citizens, combination of voters
the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, or four or
more members of the Board, if the measure was
submitted by same.
or members designated by the Board.
and association of citizens, or any individual voter.
Rebuttal Arguments
The author of a proponent’s argument or an opponent’s argument may also prepare and submit a
rebuttal argument, to be printed free of charge. Rebuttal arguments are printed below the corresponding
proponent’s argument and opponent’s argument.
Paid Arguments
In addition to the proponents’ arguments, opponents’
arguments, and rebuttals, which are printed without
charge, any eligible voter, group of voters, or association may submit paid arguments.
files the referendum petition with the Board of
Supervisors.
or members designated by the Board.
and association of citizens, or any individual voter.
Paid arguments are printed on the pages following the
proponent’s and opponent’s arguments and rebuttals.
All of the paid arguments in favor of a measure are
printed together, followed by the paid arguments
opposed to that measure. Paid arguments for each
measure are printed in order of submission.
!
All arguments are strictly the opinions
of their authors. Arguments and rebuttals
are printed as submitted, including any
typographical, spelling, or grammatical errors.
They are not checked for accuracy by the Director
of Elections nor any other City agency, official, or
employee.
60
Local Ballot Measures
38-EN-N14-CP60
Words You Need to Know
by the Ballot Simplification Committee
10-Year Capital Plan (Proposition A): The San Francisco
Administrative Code requires the City to prepare and
adopt a 10-year plan to meet the City’s capital infrastructure needs. The plan includes a timeline for issuing new
bonds.
Advisory committee (Proposition L): A committee created by the City to obtain the views of San Franciscans
and make recommendations.
Affordable housing (Propositions D, K): Residential
units that persons or households within a certain range of
incomes would be able to afford. (See also “Low-income
household,” “Moderate-income household.”)
Amend (Propositions B, C, D, I, J): To change.
Artificial turf (Propositions H, I): A surface made of synthetic fibers designed to look like grass.
Audit (Proposition A): A formal examination of financial
or management accounts and information.
BART (Proposition A): Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is
a heavy rail transit and subway system serving the San
Francisco Bay Area.
Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee (Proposition A): A nine-member body that moni-
tors the City’s use of funds generated by issuing general
obligation bonds. Members of this committee are appointed by the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, the
Controller and the Civil Grand Jury.
Civil Grand Jury (Proposition A): A 19-member body
consisting of San Francisco residents who serve for a
one-year period. Its primary function is to investigate the
operations of City government.
Consumer Price Index (CPI) (Proposition L): A measure
that examines the average price of goods and services. It
is used to assess changes in the cost of living.
Curb bulb-outs (Proposition A): A bulb-out extends the
sidewalk into the roadway to provide additional pedestrian space. They can be at corners or at mid-block locations.
Daytime population (Proposition B): The number of
people who work in San Francisco.
Declaration of policy (Propositions K, L): A statement or
expression of the will of the voters.
Base Amount (Proposition B): The amount of money
Demand-responsive pricing (Proposition L): Demand-
Beverage-dispensing machine (Proposition E): An
Displacement (Proposition K): The forced departure of
the City is required to transfer from the General Fund to
the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency each
year. The City adjusts this amount each year based on its
overall revenue.
automated device that mixes syrups or powders with
liquid to make drinks. A soda fountain machine, such as
those found in fast-food restaurants, is an example of a
beverage-dispensing machine.
Boarding islands (Proposition A): Raised islands in the
street that allow public transit vehicles to use a center
lane to pick up and drop off customers at transit stops.
Bond (Propositions A, L): A bond is a promise by the City
to pay back money borrowed, plus interest, by a specific
date. If the City needs to raise a large amount of money
to pay for a library, sewer line, school, hospital or other
project or program, it may borrow the money by selling
bonds. (See also “General Obligation Bond.”)
Bulb-outs (Proposition A): See “Curb bulb-outs.”
California Coastal Commission (Proposition H): A state
agency with regulatory oversight over land use and public
access on the California coast.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Propo-
sition F): A state law that requires state and local agencies
to identify significant environmental impacts of their actions. Agencies are required to prevent or mitigate those
impacts, if feasible.
Charter Amendment (Propositions B, C, D): A change
to the City’s Charter. The Charter is the City’s Constitution.
The Charter can only be changed by a majority of the
votes cast.
responsive pricing allows the SFMTA to adjust rates at
parking meters: when demand is high, the rates increase;
when demand is low, the rates decrease. The goal is to
increase parking availability.
people from their homes, sometimes due to eviction or
the increased cost of housing.
Environmental impact report (Proposition I): A report
that identifies and assesses the likely environmental effects of a proposed project.
Fiscal year (Propositions B, C): The City’s 12-month
budget period, starting July 1st and ending June 30th of
the following calendar year.
General Fund (Propositions B, C, L): That part of the
City’s annual budget that can be used for any City purpose. Each year, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors
decide how the General Fund will be used. Money for the
General Fund comes from property, business, sales, and
other taxes and fees.
General obligation bond (Proposition A): A promise
issued by the City to pay back money borrowed, plus
interest, by a certain date. The City repays the money,
plus interest, with property taxes over a period of years.
General obligation bond measures must be approved by
the voters.
Height limit (Proposition F): A limit set by the City as to
how tall a building or structure may be built.
Housing Trust Fund (Proposition K): A fund established
by San Francisco voters to pay for affordable housing
programs. The City is required to contribute to the Fund
every year.
38-EN-N14-CP61
Local Ballot Measures
61
Household (Propositions F, G, K, L): The people living
Proposition (Propositions A–L): Any measure that is sub-
Infrastructure (Proposition A): The basic structures and
Provisional ballot (Frequently asked questions): A ballot
together in a house, condominium or apartment.
facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies)
needed for operation.
Initiative (Propositions F, H): A proposition placed on the
ballot by voters. Any voter may place an initiative on the
ballot by gathering the required number of signatures of
registered voters on a petition.
In-law unit (Proposition G): A separate dwelling unit lo-
cated within a residential building that generally is much
smaller than the primary unit.
Low-income household (Propositions F, K): Household
with an income between 0% and 80% of the median
income according to federal guidelines for San Francisco.
For a four-person household, this income would be $0 up
to $77,700.
Middle-class (Proposition K): Household with an income
120% to 150% of the median income according to federal guidelines for San Francisco. For a four-person
household, this income would be between $116,500 and
$145,650.
mitted to the voters for approval or disapproval.
cast at a polling place that will not be counted until the
Department of Elections verifies the voter’s eligibility to
cast that ballot.
Redevelopment Agency (Proposition D): A state agency
that promoted economic revitalization and affordable
housing in San Francisco. On February 1, 2012, the California Legislature dissolved all redevelopment agencies
throughout the State. A Successor Agency was created
to wind down the affairs of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
Residential Parking Permit program (Proposition L):
A program that allows residents in some neighborhoods
to purchase a permit to park in their neighborhood for
longer than the posted time restrictions. Vehicles without
a permit can park on street but are subject to posted time
limits. The price for these permits is set in accordance
with state law.
Retiree Health Care Trust Fund (Proposition D): An
Minimum wage (Proposition J): The lowest hourly
account that is kept separate from other accounts and
contains assets that can only be used to pay retiree health
care costs.
Mixed-use project (Proposition F): A project with mul-
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
(SFMTA) (Propositions B, L): The City department respon-
amount of money a worker must be paid.
tiple uses, such as residential, office, retail, arts spaces,
public open space and recreation areas.
Moderate-income household (Propositions F, K):
Household with an income between 80% and 120% of
the median income according to federal guidelines for
San Francisco. For a four-person household, this income
would be between $77,700 and $116,500.
Nighttime population (Proposition B): The number of
San Francisco residents.
Ordinance (Propositions E–J): A local law passed by the
Board of Supervisors or by the voters.
Park Code (Proposition I): A portion of the San Francisco
Municipal Code that includes rules and regulations for
most City parks, walkways, playgrounds and athletic
fields.
Pass through (Proposition A): To recover an increase in
property taxes by passing on a portion of the cost to tenants.
Planning Commission (Proposition H): The City commission responsible for adopting and maintaining a comprehensive, long-term general plan for future improvement
and development.
Port Commission (Proposition F): The City commission
responsible for managing and maintaining Port property.
Property tax (Propositions A, C, K): A tax assessed by the
City on buildings and land.
sible for the management of all ground transportation
in San Francisco, including Muni (Municipal Railway),
parking and traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and the
regulation of taxis.
Set-aside (Propositions C, K): A requirement in the City
Charter that the City transfer money every year from the
General Fund into a separate fund.
Successor Agency (Proposition D): An agency created
by the State of California to wind down the affairs of the
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
Supplemental nutrition product (Proposition E): A
product designed as extra nutrition or a meal replacement; for example, Ensure.
Transfer tax (Proposition G): A tax on the passing of
property from one person or entity to another.
Transit-First Policy (Proposition L): A policy in the City
Charter establishing that the City’s top transportation priorities are public transit, bicycling and walking.
Transit-only lanes (Proposition A): Travel lanes that
are designated exclusively for the use of public transit
vehicles.
Transportation Task Force (Proposition A): A panel of
transportation and financial experts and community advocates who studied San Francisco’s transportation system
and developed recommendations on how to improve
and expand it between now and 2030. The task force set
priorities for specific infrastructure projects and funding
sources.
62
Local Ballot Measures
38-EN-N14-CP62
An Overview of San Francisco’s Debt
What Is Bond Financing?
Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing
used to raise money for projects. The City receives
money by selling bonds to investors. The City must
pay back the amount borrowed plus interest to
those investors. The money raised from bond sales
is used to pay for large capital projects such as fire
and police stations, affordable housing programs,
schools, libraries, parks, and other city facilities. The
City uses bond financing because these buildings
will last many years and their large dollar costs are
difficult to pay for all at once.
Types of Bonds. There are two major types of bonds
– General Obligation and Revenue.
General Obligation Bonds are used to pay for projects that benefit citizens but do not raise revenue
(for example, police stations or parks are not set up
to pay for themselves). When general obligation
bonds are approved and sold, they are repaid by
property taxes. The Transportation and Road
Improvements Bond on this ballot is a general obligation bond to be issued by the City. General obligation bonds to be issued by the City must be
approved by two-thirds of the voters.
Revenue Bonds are used to pay for projects such as
major improvements to an airport, water system,
garage or other large facilities which generate revenue. When revenue bonds are approved and sold,
they are generally repaid from revenues generated
by the bond-financed projects, for example usage
fees or parking fees. The City’s revenue bonds must
be approved by a majority vote. There is no revenue
bond on this ballot.
What Does It Cost to Borrow?
The City’s cost to borrow money depends on the
amount borrowed, the interest rate on the debt and
the number of years over which the debt will be
repaid. Large debt is usually paid off over a period
of 10 to 35 years. Assuming an average interest rate
of 6% the cost of paying off debt over 20 years is
about $1.73 for each dollar borrowed – $1 for the
dollar borrowed and 73 cents for the interest. These
payments, however, are spread over the 20-year
period. Therefore inflation reduces the effective cost
of borrowing because the future payments are made
with cheaper dollars. Assuming a 4% annual inflation rate, the cost of paying off debt in today’s dollars would be about $1.18 for every $1 borrowed.
The City’s Current Debt Situation
Debt Payments. During fiscal year 2014–2015 property tax payers in the City will pay approximately $389
million of principal and interest on outstanding
bonds of the City and the other issuers of general
obligation bond debt (these are the San Francisco
Community College District, San Francisco Unified
School District and Bay Area Rapid Transit District).
The property tax rate for the year to provide for debt
and special funds debt requirements will be 17.43
cents per $100 of assessed valuation or $685 on a
home assessed at $400,000.
Legal Debt Limit. The City Charter imposes a limit
on the amount of general obligation bonds the City
can have outstanding at any given time. That limit is
3% of the assessed value of taxable property in the
City – or currently about $5.47 billion. Voters give
the City authorization to issue bonds. Those bonds
that have been issued and not yet repaid are considered to be outstanding. As of June 30, 2014, there
was $1.9 billion in outstanding general obligation
bonds, which is equal to 1.06% of the assessed value
of taxable property. There is an additional $941 million in bonds that are authorized but unissued. If
these bonds were issued and outstanding, the total
debt burden would be 1.58% of the assessed value
of taxable property. Bonds issued by the School
District and Community College District and Bay
Area Rapid Transit District (BART) do not increase
the City’s debt burden for the purposes of the
Charter limit, however they are repaid by property
taxes (see Prudent Debt Management below). Part of
the City’s current debt management policy is to
issue new general obligation bonds as old ones are
retired, keeping the property tax rate from City general obligation bonds approximately the same over
time.
Prudent Debt Management. Even though the City is
well within its legal debt limit in issuing general
obligation bonds, there are other debt comparisons
used by bond rating agencies when they view the
38-EN-N14-CP63
City’s financial health. These agencies look at many
types of local and regional debt that are dependent
on the City’s tax base including our general obligation bonds, lease revenue bonds, certificates of participation, special assessment bonds, BART and
school and community college district bonds. The
“direct debt ratio” which includes direct debt and
other long term obligations and excludes special
assessment bonds, BART and school and community college district bonds, is equal to 1.67% of the
assessed value of taxable property. This direct debt
ratio is considered to be a “moderate” debt burden
relative to the size of San Francisco’s property tax
base. While this ratio is within the comparable
benchmarks, the City needs to continue to set priorities for future debt to continue to maintain good
credit ratings that, in turn, are a sign of good financial health.
Citizen Oversight of General Obligation
Bonds
Voters must approve the purpose and amount of
the money to be borrowed through bonds. Bond
money may be spent only for the purposes
approved by the voters.
For general obligation bonds issued by the City of
San Francisco, the Citizens’ General Obligation
Bond Oversight Committee reviews and reports on
how bond money is spent. The nine members of the
Committee are appointed by the Mayor, Board of
Supervisors, Controller, and Civil Grand Jury. If the
Committee finds that bond money has been spent
for purposes not approved by the voters, the Committee can require corrective action and prohibit the
sale of any authorized but unissued bonds until
such action is taken. The Board of Supervisors can
reverse the decisions of the committee by a twothirds vote. The Controller may audit any of the
City’s bond expenditures.
Prepared by Ben Rosenfield, Controller
Local Ballot Measures
63
Ballot Drop-off
Stations at City Hall
Beginning the weekend before the
election, you can walk, drive, or pedal to
City Hall to drop off your ballot.
Once you’ve marked your ballot, bring it,
in your signed and sealed envelope, to the
Drop-off Stations at the Goodlett and Grove
Street entrances to City Hall. Drop your
envelope in the secure box and get your
“I Voted” sticker from the Elections staff.
Saturday, November 1
open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Sunday, November 2
open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Monday, November 3
open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Election Day, Tuesday, November 4
open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
64
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A
A
38-EN-N14-CP64
San Francisco Transportation and
Road Improvement Bond
SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT BOND.
YES
To construct, redesign and rebuild streets and sidewalks and to make
NO
infrastructure repairs and improvements that increase MUNI service reliability,
ease traffic congestion, reduce vehicle travel times, enhance pedestrian and
bicycle safety, and improve disabled access, shall the City and County of
San Francisco issue $500 million in general obligation bonds, subject to
independent citizen oversight and regular audits?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: After a comprehensive review of
San Francisco’s transportation system needs, the
Transportation Task Force identified $10 billion in crucial infrastructure projects needed to:
• improve Muni reliability and accessibility;
The City could use the funds for the following purposes:
• Construct transit-only lanes and separated bikeways;
• Install new boarding islands, accessible platforms, and escalators at Muni/BART stops;
• improve the conditions of streets; and
• Install new traffic signals, pedestrian countdown
signals, and audible pedestrian signals;
• make the roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists,
and motorists.
• Install sidewalk curb bulb-outs, raised crosswalks,
median islands, and bicycle parking; and
The City has developed plans to deliver those
improvements in stages.
The City’s 10-year Capital Plan identifies investment in
transportation infrastructure as a high priority. To pay
for these infrastructure improvements, the City proposes borrowing money by selling general obligation
bonds that will be paid for through property tax revenues. Current City policy is to issue new bonds only as
prior bond debt is retired.
The City’s use of funds generated by general obligation bonds is monitored by the Citizens’ General
Obligation Bond Oversight Committee. The committee
is appointed by the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors
(Board), the Controller, and the Civil Grand Jury.
The Proposal: Proposition A is an ordinance that
would allow the City to borrow up to $500 million by
issuing general obligation bonds.
• Upgrade Muni maintenance facilities.
Any proposed use of these bond funds would be subject to review and further changes by the Mayor and
the Board.
Proposition A would allow an increase in the property
tax to pay for the bonds, if needed. It would permit
landlords to pass through up to 50% of any resulting
property tax increase to tenants.
Proposition A also would require the Citizens’ General
Obligation Bond Oversight Committee to review the
spending of bond funds. One-tenth of one percent
(0.1%) of the bond funds would pay for the committee’s audit and oversight functions.
Approval of this measure requires two-thirds of the
votes cast.
The City would use this money to implement many of
the infrastructure repairs and improvements identified
by the Transportation Task Force.
This measure requires 66⅔% affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP65
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want the
City to issue $500 million in general obligation bonds
on infrastructure projects designed to:
• improve Muni reliability and accessibility;
• improve the conditions of streets; and
• make roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorists.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
the City to issue these bonds.
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A
65
How “A” Got on the Ballot
On July 15, 2014, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to
0 to place Proposition A on the ballot. The Supervisors
voted as follows:
Yes: Avalos, Breed, Campos, Chiu, Cohen, Farrell, Kim,
Mar, Tang, Wiener, Yee.
No: None.
Controller’s Statement on “A”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition A:
Should the proposed $500 million in bonds be authorized and sold under current assumptions, the approximate costs will be as follows:
• In fiscal year 2015–2016, following issuance of the
first series of bonds, and the year with the lowest
tax rate, the estimated annual costs of debt service would be $23.3 million and result in a property tax rate of $0.0123 per $100 ($12.09 per
$100,000) of assessed valuation.
• In fiscal year 2020–2021, following issuance of the
last series of bonds, the estimated annual costs
of debt service would be $42.2 million and result
in a property tax rate of $0.0185 per $100 ($18.20
per $100,000) of assessed valuation.
• The best estimate of the average tax rate for
these bonds from fiscal year 2015–2016 through
2039–2040 is $0.0122 per $100 ($12.00 per
$100,000) of assessed valuation.
• Based on these estimates, the highest estimated
annual property tax cost for these bonds for the
owner of a home with an assessed value of
$500,000 would be approximately $91.02.
These estimates are based on projections only, which
are not binding upon the City. Projections and estimates may vary due to the timing of bond sales, the
amount of bonds sold at each sale, and actual
assessed valuation over the term of repayment of the
bonds. Hence, the actual tax rate and the years in
which such rates are applicable may vary from those
estimated above. The City’s current debt management
policy is to issue new general obligation bonds only
as old ones are retired, keeping the property tax
impact from general obligation bonds approximately
the same over time.
This measure requires 66⅔% affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
66
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A
38-EN-N14-CP66
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition A
Modernizing and upgrading San Francisco’s aging
transportation infrastructure is critical to public safety
and improving everyone’s experience in getting
around San Francisco.
Proposition A is a smart investment that will create a
safer environment for pedestrians and people with
disabilities, make Muni more reliable, improve traffic
flow, and decrease travel times for everyone.
Proposition A would fund projects that provide these
upgrades for a 21st Century San Francisco.
And, Proposition A will not raise taxes because these
bonds only would be issued as previous bond debt is
retired.
Examples of transit infrastructure improvements
include:
• Upgrades to key corridors such as Geary, 19th
Avenue, and Market Street to reduce congestion
and make it easier for everyone to get where they
are going;
• State-of-the-art signals that respond to changing
traffic conditions and reduce idling time, improving
flow for cars, buses, and bicycles;
• Muni system upgrades, including replacement of
overhead wires and rail tracks to prevent breakdowns and keep more buses and trains in service;
• Critical pedestrian safety improvements such as
raised crosswalks, more countdown signals and
audible signals;
• Separated bike lines to keep bicycles away from car
traffic and make it safer for everyone;
• Wider sidewalks and Muni boarding islands to
make boarding trains and buses safer and easier;
• New elevators and escalators at transit stations,
improving safety and accessibility; • Modernizing Muni maintenance facilities, reducing
repair times and keeping more buses and trains in
service.
Whether you take Muni, drive, cycle, or walk in San
Francisco, these investments will improve everyone’s
transportation experience, make our streets safer, and
won’t raise taxes.
Transit and pedestrian safety advocates across San
Francisco urge you to vote YES ON A.
Mayor Ed Lee; Supervisors Katy Tang, David Chiu,
Scott Wiener, Mark Farrell, London Breed, Jane Kim,
Norman Yee, David Campos, Eric Mar, Malia Cohen,
and John Avalos.
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition A
Prop A Raises Property Taxes and Rents.
If Prop A passes, it will raise property taxes and rents
to levels higher than they would be otherwise.
Instead of Legal Commitment, “Weasel Words”.
Unlike other bond measures, Prop A’s legal language
makes no commitment as to how funds will be allocated.
Instead, the Bond language uses the phrase: “Projects
to be funded under the proposed Bond may include
but are not limited to…”.
And that is giving a virtual blank check to the SFMTA!
Does the SFMTA Merit this Trust?
Not if the recent past is any guide! Whether keeping
vehicles on time, maintaining neighborhood service or
meeting budgets, SFMTA has failed to honor its commitments. Prop A will not restore past service cuts
already hurting low-income families, the disabled,
seniors, youth and outlying communities throughout
San Francisco. Under Prop A, SFMTA’s “Transit
Effectiveness Project” will make still more neighbor-
hood cuts by diverting service to favored “high-use”
corridors.
A Better Way.
SFMTA should be working from a carefully-developed
plan geared to addressing San Francisco’s most critical
transportation needs. It should not be doling out $500
million haphazardly in response to pressure from
politically-connected groups.
Vote NO on A!
Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret.)
Chairman, California Senate Committee on
Transportation 1987-1998
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods 45
neighborhood organizations
San Francisco Tomorrow
Chinese American Democratic Club
San Francisco Taxpayers Association
SaveMuniSF
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
NoOnTransportationBond2014.com
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP67
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition A
67
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition A
EXTREMELY DECEPTIVE:
Proposition A does not guarantee money will be used
for Muni.
The Ordinance makes no commitment to any specific
work, instead using phrases “may be allocated” and
“may include but not limited to.” SFMTA could use all
funds on non-Muni projects, cost overruns of current
projects... The Ballot Simplification Committee’s Digest
acknowledges this failure to commit: “The City could
use the funds for the following purposes:”---rather
than “shall use.”
Prop A raises property taxes and rents without safeguards.
It raises property taxes and rents (50% pass-through)
to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million,
with a $350 million in interest, for a total debt of $850
million---with ambiguous deliverables.
Instead of restoring service, Proposition A would make
them worse.
Muni has already cut neighborhood transit, cross-town
routes and night service, hurting low-income families,
the disabled, youth and seniors. Proposition A’s Transit
Effectiveness Project would compound problems by
shifting buses to “high use” corridors. Proposition A’s
failure to deal with Muni’s jammed and deteriorating
Market Street subway is a major oversight. Its failure
to address population growth is inexcusable.
A Better Way.
Let’s seriously address San Francisco’s transportation
problems with comprehensive planning---for a citywide integrated Muni system in every neighborhood.
Vote NO on A.
SaveMuni San Francisco
Billions of transportation dollars have already been
wasted.
Since 1999, SFMTA was granted more powers, more
General Fund dollars, transportation taxes, salary
hikes, more managers and staff. Between 1999 and
2014, SFMTA cut service in every neighborhood, eliminated 7 bus lines, shortened 22 routes, deferred maintenance and missed more runs. Muni riders experience slower travel, late buses and increased fares.
Motorists face spiking parking costs, fines and meters.
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition A
Prop A will bring San Francisco’s aging transportation
infrastructure into the 21st Century without raising
taxes. Some facilities are more than 100 years old.
Prop A’s upgrades and replacements will make getting
around the City better for everyone—whether you
drive, bike, ride Muni or walk.
FACT: Prop A does not raise taxes. Because new bonds
would only be issued as old bonds retire, tax rates
remain the same.
FACT: Prop A bond funds are restricted to transportation infrastructure improvements. Citizen oversight
and audits ensure that funds are spent as required by
law.
Prop A improves pedestrian safety with improvements
including more countdown signals; raised, wider,
more visible crosswalks and better lighting. Separating
bicycles and cars makes travel safer for everyone.
Safety and accessibility are improved with new escalators and elevators at transit stations, and wider Muni
boarding islands.
Upgraded maintenance facilities will improve Muni
service by keeping more buses and trains in service.
Replacing wires and tracks will reduce breakdowns
and maintenance costs.
Transit and pedestrian safety advocates, and the Sierra
Club are supporting Prop A because it is time to
invest, upgrade and modernize. We can improve everyone’s transportation experience without raising taxes.
Yes on Prop A.
Mayor Ed Lee; Supervisors Katy Tang, David Chiu,
Scott Wiener, Mark Farrell, London Breed, Jane Kim,
Norman Yee, David Campos, Eric Mar, Malia Cohen,
and John Avalos.
Upgraded traffic signals that respond to changing
traffic patterns improve traffic flow and reduce idling
times at intersections.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
68
Paid Arguments – Proposition A
38-EN-N14-CP68
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
Vote Yes on A!
YES ON A: BETTER MUNI - SAFER STREETS
San Francisco Transit Riders
Parks, schools, civic buildings and fire stations have all
been renovated as part of the City’s long range Capital
Plan. Proposition A continues this investment, improving MUNI reliability, upgrading CalTrain, rebuilding
streets, bikeways and sidewalks, all without increasing
property taxes.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Transit Riders.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
A Common Sense Transportation Bond
An independent citizen oversight committee will
ensure that funds are spent as required by the Capital
Plan.
If we want safe streets and transit that works, we are
going to have to make some major investments. Prop
A is the first step: a $500 million bond to fund the
most critical parts of our city’s transportation system.
Take the first step in implementing the Mayor’s
Transportation Task Force plan to meet current demand
and future growth. Vote YES on A.
This is something that will benefit everyone in the city
- drivers, Muni riders, bicyclists and pedestrians.
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and our 1,500
local businesses.
SPUR*
Vote yes on Prop A.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
For the full SPUR voter guide go to www.spur.org
Attention Muni riders! Vote YES on Prop. A!
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: SPUR.
Prop. A will make Muni faster and more reliable and
will make our streets safer for everyone. Prop. A funds
will pay for:
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
• new transit lanes for more reliable service
Democratic Party Supports Prop A
• sidewalk platforms to facilitate boarding
Proposition A funds critical transportation improvements including:
• transit-friendly traffic signals to safely shorten Muni
trip times
• Improved traffic flow and reduced congestion for
cars, buses and bikes.
• new and upgraded maintenance facilities to fix
buses and trains faster
• Upgrades to Muni infrastructure, including replacement of overhead wires and rail tracks to prevent
breakdowns and keep trains and buses in service.
Prop. A will also advance bus rapid transit, and help
modernize Caltrain.
And by supporting investments in pedestrian safety,
including signal modernization, wider and bettermarked crosswalks, enhanced lighting and more, Prop.
A will also help San Francisco achieve “Vision Zero,”
the elimination of traffic fatalities in ten years.
Prop. A will NOT raise taxes, but will help catch up on
fifty years and more of underfunding. Prop. A is also
the companion to Prop. B, which invests in things
Prop. A cannot, like new vehicles to allow buses to
come more often and offer a less crowded ride.
Together with Prop. B, Prop. A will help build the
transit system we need and deserve.
• Upgrades to key transit corridors such as 19th
Avenue, Geary Street and Market Street to reduce
congestion and make it easier for everyone to get
where they are going.
• Pedestrian safety improvements such as raised
crosswalks, modernized pedestrian countdown
signals and audible crosswalk signals.
Keep San Francisco Moving – Join the SF Democratic
Party in Supporting Prop A!
San Francisco Democratic Party
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: SF Democratic Party.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP69
Paid Arguments – Proposition A
69
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
Disability Advocates Support Prop A.
BETTER TRANSIT MAKES BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS!
People with disabilities support Prop A because it
makes it safer for everyone to get around the City.
Increasing the number of countdown signals, the addition of audible countdown signals and raised crosswalks, and repairing existing access points such as
elevators and escalators will make getting around the
City safer for everyone. We urge you to vote YES on A.
The San Francisco Housing Action Coalition strongly
supports Prop A because housing and good transit go
hand-in-hand for a thriving, vibrant city. It’s becoming
increasingly clear that our City’s future livability critically depends on a fully funded transportation plan,
which Prop A does. It is not possible to keep the City’s
economy healthy, address environmental challenges,
and much less add the housing we so badly need,
without fixing our over-burdened public transit
system. A successful transit system is vital to keeping
San Francisco a world-class city. Let’s not let MUNI fall
behind - let’s move MUNI forward.
Senior and Disability Action
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee four Reliable Transportation and
Better, Safer Streets.
The two largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Committee for a Brighter San Francisco Future,
2. San Franciscans for Fire, Earthquake and Disaster
Preparedness.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
First Responders Support Prop A
Prop A will alleviate congestion on major corridors in
San Francisco, helping our first responders get to
emergencies quickly.
Major congestion on some of the most frequently trafficked corridors of the city such as 19th Avenue, Geary
and Market Street can be problematic for fire engines,
ambulance and police cars to navigate. Prop A will
reduce congestion through its capital projects, including new, state-of-the-art signals that respond to changing traffic conditions and reduce idling time, improving flow for cars, buses, and bicycles, which then open
up the roadway to emergency vehicles.
We urge you to vote YES on A.
Greg Suhr, San Francisco Police Chief *
Joanne Hayes-White, San Francisco Fire Chief*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Reliable Transportation and Better,
Safer Streets.
The two largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Committee for a Brighter San Francisco Future,
2. San Franciscans for Fire, Earthquake and Disaster
Preparedness.
Support Prop A!
The San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Reliable Transportation and Better,
Safer Streets.
The two largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Committee for a Brighter San Francisco Future,
2. San Franciscans for Fire, Earthquake and Disaster
Preparedness.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
PROP A CREATES LOCAL JOBS
Proposition A will create good-paying jobs for San
Franciscans while making needed improvement to our
transportation infrastructure.
Proposition A will improve MUNI reliability and
decrease travel times; make our streets and sidewalks
safer and more accessible for pedestrians. Prop A will
modernize Muni maintenance facilities, helping
workers with bus and train repairs in order to keep
more buses and trains on the streets.
Proposition A is a win for our transportation infrastructure and a win for San Francisco’s hard working men
and women.
San Francisco Labor Council
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Reliable Transportation and Better
Safer Streets.
The two largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Committee for a Brighter San Francisco Future,
2. San Franciscans for Fire, Earthquake and Disaster
Preparedness.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
70
Paid Arguments – Proposition A
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
Yes on A for San Francisco Streets and Transportation!
PROP A: STREET SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS
Improving the streets of San Francisco and the City’s
transportation system promotes safety, social equity,
environmental sustainability, affordability and access
to housing, jobs and recreation. Prop A will improve
road conditions, street safety and transit service.
PROP A IMPROVES THE CONDITION OF STREETS,
MAKES OUR STREETS SAFER AND PROVIDES
FASTER AND MORE RELIABLE TRANSIT
Prop A will improve pedestrian safety through focused
engineering efforts at high-injury locations, install
modern traffic signals to improve safety and mobility,
improve safety and accessibility at transit stops, invest
in development of critical projects along key corridors
that address congestion, upgrade old facilities to
improve maintenance of Muni vehicles and install
crosswalks, sidewalks, bulbouts, platforms and other
street improvements to improve safety for all users of
the streets and Muni speed.
PROP A DOES NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES
City policy only allows for new bonds to be issued as
old ones are paid off. By replacing expired bonds, the
measure is funded at current rates - NO TAX
INCREASE.
38-EN-N14-CP70
The two largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Committee for a Brighter San Francisco Future,
2. San Franciscans for Fire, Earthquake and Disaster
Preparedness.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A
VOTE YES ON A FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!
YES on A is one of three votes you can make for the
environment, along with Yes on B & No on L.
Private automobiles create one-third of our city’s
carbon pollution, so improving Muni is key to fighting
climate change. Proposition A funds critical Muni
improvements to help buses run on time and more
quickly and safely.
Investing in transit is good for the planet.
Vote YES on A.
San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco League of Conservation Voters.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition A
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition A
San Francisco’s neighborhoods OPPOSE Prop A!
1.) The language of this bond is vague and ambiguous.
PROP A ENSURES ACCOUNTABILITY
2.) The Central Subway could divert Bond Funding.
A Citizen’s oversight committee ensures accountability.
Prop A is subject to annual independent audits and
public reporting of all expenditures.
3.) True citizen oversight of project expenditures is
non-existent.
Please join us in Voting YES on A.
Tom Nolan, Chairman SFMTA Board of Directors*
Cheryl Brinkman, Vice-Chair SFMTA Board of
Directors*
Malcolm Heinicke, Member SFMTA Board of
Directors*
Jerry Lee, Member SFMTA Board of Directors*
Joél Ramos, Member SFMTA Board of Directors*
Cristina Rubke, Member SFMTA Board of Directors*
Gwyneth Borden, Member SFMTA Board of Directors*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Reliable Transportation & Better,
Safer Streets.
4.) Nothing in the measure indicates who or what
entity makes the decision as to which projects will be
funded and for what dollar amounts.
5.) SFMTA must show it can track its capital projects’
schedules and budgets, as well as avoid overruns
before voters give it a $500 million bond with $350
million in debt interest.
Vote NO on Prop A!
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Established 1972.
45 neighborhood organizations.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods—
CSFN.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Paid Arguments – Proposition A
38-EN-N14-CP71
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition A
We are seniors and people with disabilities who need
MUNI but oppose Prop. A.
Prop. A’s wording is vague, overly broad, and makes
no commitments.
Prop. A dangles appealing uses before the voters but
is a blank check for unknown uses.
Prop. A says nothing about the Mayor’s Transportation
Task Force and makes no commitments about spending any bond proceeds on suggested uses.
Worse, Prop. A could pay for TEP improvements that
reduce bus stops, making seniors and the disabled
travel farther and longer to get to/ from MUNI.
The MTA boards supposedly decides how to spend
bond funds but shows little independence from the
Mayor.
Should the voters approve bonds for a Mayor who
plays politics with MTA funding by gutting $33 million
from the approved MTA budget?
71
The proponents’ biggest untruth is that Proposition A
“will not raise taxes…”
Of course it will raise taxes – for both owners and
tenants who will split repayment with interest 50-50!
There’s nothing in Proposition A prohibiting tax
increases by only selling bonds after previous bond
debt is retired.
Moreover, the Controller tells us Proposition A raises
property taxes by over a half-billion in interest alone!
As the only taxpayer organization in our City, SF
Taxpayers Association is appalled, though not surprised, that City Hall would dupe tenant voters and
taxpayers like this.
Vote No on A!
San Francisco Taxpayers Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Taxpayers Association.
The two contributors to the true source recipient committee:
Denise La Pointe, Richard Hall.
Who threatens Supervisors who think and act independently by putting on an alternative funding
measure?
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition A
A? Absolutely not!
Taxpayers have already given Muni billions of dollars
in added budgets since 1999. But we have gotten only
Muni service cuts in every neighborhood.
Bruce Oka, former MTA board member*
Jeanne Lynch, PCC member*
John Mona, 3-times Grand Juror*
Bob Planthold, disability advocate
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Bruce Oka, Jeanne Lynch.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition A
Proposition A exemplifies why City Hall can’t be
trusted.
We must soundly reject it!
It asks taxpayers to approve $500,000,000.00 of
general obligation bond borrowings for undefined
“projects.”
Ignoring California Government Code section 53410, it
liberally uses the word “may” regarding potential uses
of half-billion dollar taxpayer debt.
We’ll have over 30 years of repayment that includes
another half-billion – or more – in interest (depending
on interest rates).
MUCH DECEPTION! AGAIN!
This $500 million Bond, with $350 million in interest
for a total debt of $850 million, increases property
taxes and rents and isn’t even guaranteed for Muni.
The Ordinance says “may be allocated” to Muni projects---not “shall be”.
Prop A’s “Transit Effectiveness Project” plans more
Muni cuts in neighborhoods. Let’s reverse this wrong
direction!
Vote NO on A.
Howard Wong, SaveMuni
Wilma Pang, ABCT (A Better Chinatown Tomorrow)*
Lotus Yee Fong, ABCT (A Better Chinatown Tomorrow)*
Arthur Chang, International Development Consultant
(Ret.)
David Tse, Board of Directors, Freedom West Homes*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: HOWARD WONG, WILMA PANG, LOTUS YEE
FONG, ARTHUR CHANG, DAVID TSE.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
72
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B
B
38-EN-N14-CP72
Adjusting Transportation Funding
for Population Growth
Shall the City amend the Charter to increase the amount the City provides
to the Municipal Transportation Agency based on increases in the City’s
population, with such funds to be used to improve Muni and to improve
street safety?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: The City’s Charter gives the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
authority over the City’s transportation system, which
includes the Municipal Railway (Muni) and the City’s
roads, sidewalks, and bicycle paths.
The SFMTA collects revenue from several sources,
including Muni fares, parking fees and citations, and
parking permits. In addition, the SFMTA receives
money from the City’s General Fund. The City is
required to transfer a portion of its General Fund
revenue to the SFMTA every year. This is called the
Base Amount. It is adjusted every year based on the
City’s overall revenue and is not related to population.
For fiscal year 2014–2015, the Base Amount is $247.9
million.
The Proposal: Proposition B is a Charter Amendment
that would require the City to increase the Base
Amount provided to the SFMTA by a percentage equal
to the City’s annual population increase, taking into
account daytime and nighttime populations, as determined by the Controller’s office. In 2015, the City
would increase the Base Amount based on population
increases over the previous 10 years. In future years,
the City would increase the Base Amount based on
population increases over the previous year.
Proposition B would also require the SFMTA to use
75% of any population-based increases in the Base
Amount to improve Muni’s reliability, frequency of
service, and capacity and to pay for Muni repairs.
The other 25% would be used for capital expenditures
to improve street safety.
Proposition B would also authorize the Mayor to discontinue the Base Amount increases required by this
measure if the voters enact a vehicle license fee in the
future.
YES
NO
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to
change the Charter to increase the amount the City
provides to the SFMTA based on increases in the City’s
population.These funds must be used to improve
Muni and to improve street safety.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
to make this change.
Controller’s Statement on “B”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition B:
Should the proposed charter amendment be approved
by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government.
The proposed Charter amendment would, beginning
in fiscal year (FY) 2015–16, increase voter-adopted
baseline funding for the Municipal Transportation
Agency (MTA) by the percentage growth in the city’s
population during the past ten years. This amount
would be approximately $22 million. The MTA baseline
funding amount would continue to be adjusted in
future years when city population grows, resulting in
additional average annual increases of approximately
$1.5 million given historical population growth. The
proposed population-based baseline adjustment
would be in addition to the existing set-aside baseline
funding for the MTA which is tied to growth in the
City’s overall discretionary revenue. The existing baseline amount will be approximately $256 million by
FY2015–16.
The proposed Charter amendment would authorize
the Mayor to discontinue the population-based baseline amount if the voters enact a local vehicle license
fee to fund transportation in a future election.
The proposed measure would set aside funds for transit system improvements and capital expenditures that
would otherwise be available for any public purpose.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP73
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B
73
The amendment does not identify new revenue
sources for this set-aside and other City spending
would therefore have to be reduced or new sources of
funding identified to maintain current service levels.
This proposed Charter amendment is not in compliance with a non-binding, voter-adopted city policy
which states that any new set-aside shall identify adequate new revenue sources to cover its cost and shall
expire after ten years.
How “B” Got on the Ballot
On July 22, 2014, the Board of Supervisors voted 6 to
4 to place Proposition B on the ballot. The Supervisors
voted as follows:
Yes: Breed, Campos, Chiu, Cohen, Kim, Wiener.
No: Farrell, Mar, Tang, Yee.
Excused: Avalos.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
74
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B
38-EN-N14-CP74
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition B
Prop B ties transportation funding to population
growth and is a common sense step toward a better
transportation system.
San Francisco’s population is growing, but our transportation system isn’t keeping up. Muni is unreliable
and over-crowded; our congested roads are getting
more dangerous. Prop B, by taking that growth into
account, will make Muni more reliable and our streets
safer.
Muni doesn’t have enough vehicles, and its vehicles
break down frequently. Muni riders pay the price
when buses don’t arrive and when the ones that do
arrive are so crowded you can’t get on. Muni has over
$2 billion in deferred maintenance, and that number
will grow unless we make smart investments. When
Muni fails, riders suffer, our streets become more congested with cars, and our environment gets more polluted.
With increasing congestion, our streets become more
dangerous, particularly for pedestrians. We’ve had too
many pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
As our population increases - it’s gone up by 85,000
people since 2003 and will grow another 150,000 by
2040 - our commitment to public transportation and
street safety must also grow. We need to shore up
Muni and expand its capacity to carry passengers.
Otherwise, the system will continue to decline, fewer
people will take transit, and we’ll have more cars on
our streets, causing congestion, collisions, and pollution.
Prop B will provide new investment in our transportation system. 75% of Prop B’s funds will be used for
investments to improve Muni’s reliability, frequency of
service, and passenger capacity. 25% will be dedicated
to make our streets safer.
When combined with the critically important transportation bond (Prop A), we can make real progress.
Vote yes on Prop B for better transportation and a
cleaner environment.
Sierra Club
San Francisco Democratic Party
League of Conservation Voters
San Francisco Transit Riders
Walk San Francisco
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition B
REGARDING POLITICAL SORCERERS AND GREEDY
HOUSING DEVELOPERS:
Giacomo Casanova, in The Story of My Life, tells of
being 8 years old in Venice with a nose bleeding problem in 1733:
“Marzia, my grandmother…took me in a gondola…to
Murano (Island)….Stepping out of the gondola, we
entered a hovel…(with) an old woman holding a black
cat (speaking)…the Friulian tongue….(M)y grandmother gave the witch a silver ducat, whereupon the
crone opened a chest…put me inside it, and closed
it.…I was finally extracted; my bleeding stopped.…
(S)he rubbed my temples with a sweet-smelling
unguent and…told me my hemorrhage would continue to subside so long as I did not tell…what she
had done to cure me…”
Their real goal is to make greedy developers as much
money as possible, leaving the City’s residents holding
the losses.
The City Charter—the developers demand—should be
amended to promote their profits.
As an older and wiser Casanova later wrote:
“Sorcerers have never existed, but their power has,
for those who have the talent to make others believe
they were sorcerers.”
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
United States President’s Federal Executive Awards
Committeeman (1988)*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Like the witch, there are many political sorcerers and
housing developers here in San Francisco who want to
hide from the public their massive overbuilding of the
City, causing terrible traffic, parking, and auto accident
problems—also causing awful demands for municipal
services. The public harm can be hidden for awhile.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP75
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B
75
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition B
PROPOSITION “B” IS A HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE CITY
CHARTER AMENDMENT ALLOWING “THE
CONTROLLER, IN HIS SOLE DISCRETION…” TO MAKE
ALL SORTS OF FINANCIAL CHOICES THAT ARE
REALLY POLITICAL DECISIONS:
The Board of Supervisors and other elected public officials should be given the duty to make complex political choices.
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
Concerned and Questioning Citizen*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition B
San Francisco’s transportation system hasn’t kept up
with our growing population. Muni riders, drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists are all paying the price.
Prop B ensures that as our population grows, our
investment in better transportation grows as well.
Prop B complements Prop A (the transportation bond).
Both measures are crucial to improved transportation
in San Francisco. Prop A funds critical one-time transportation infrastructure needs - bond funds like Prop A
must be used for one-time capital costs - while Prop B
provides ongoing annual funding to improve reliability, passenger capacity, and frequency of service.
Props A and B are two sides of the same coin and,
together, will make key improvements to our transportation system.
Prop B dedicates 75% of its funds to investments to
improve Muni’s frequency of service, reliability, and
passenger capacity, and keeping Muni’s vehicles and
equipment in good repair. For example, Prop B will
allow Muni to purchase new vehicles and rehabilitate
existing vehicles.
Prop B dedicates the remaining 25% of funds to
improving the safety of our streets for all users. Our
streets are clogged, and we have way too many collisions, particularly involving pedestrians. Prop B will
provide funding to improve safety, including pedestrian safety, and to make our roads better able to handle high usage.
Environmental and transportation groups stand united
with the Democratic Party in support of Prop B.
Yes on B!
Sierra Club
San Francisco Democratic Party
League of Conservation Voters
San Francisco Transit Riders
Walk San Francisco
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
76
Paid Arguments – Proposition B
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
TWO VOTES FOR A BETTER MUNI AND SAFER
STREETS:
Vote YES on A and B
Two complementary measures help correct decades of
underfunding of San Francisco’s transportation
systems. Proposition A will authorize bonds to
improve streets for Muni, bikes and pedestrians, and
upgrade Muni’s facilities. Proposition B will help fix
what, by law, bond funds cannot be used for.
What Prop. B will NOT do is raise taxes.
San Francisco is growing and has been for years. This
growth has generated increased revenues for the
General Fund. Prop. B puts a share of these additional
General Fund revenues towards Muni and safe streets
based on population growth.
Prop. B will
• help pay for new buses and light rail vehicles to
replace Muni’s worn-out fleet
• buy additional new vehicles to relieve overcrowding
• increase capacity and provide more frequent
service to relieve overcrowding
• pay for improvements to street safety for all users.
That’s why we say, VOTE YES ON A & B!
San Francisco Transit Riders
Thea Selby, Chair
ReeD Martin, Director
Daniel Sisson , Director
Peter Straus, Director
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Transit Riders.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
Seniors and disabled passengers urge: Yes on B!
We need a reliable, well-run MUNI, as do youth.
Current funding sources and levels are not adequate.
More people and jobs in SF puts greater demands on
MUNI
Prop. B’s formula helps MUNI.
B reduce breakdowns.
Bruce Oka, former MTA board member*
Angelo Figone, transportation consultant
Jack Mona, 3-times Grand Juror
Bob Planthold, disability advocate*
38-EN-N14-CP76
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Angelo Figone, Jack Mona, Bob Planthold.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
DEPENDABLE TRANSPORTATION CREATES BETTER
NEIGHBORHOODS!
Our city’s population has grown by 85,000 in the last
decade with another 150,000 residents projected in the
next 25 years. With current funding, we’ve reached the
limit of what MUNI can deliver - our aging transit
system is facing a day of reckoning. As our neighborhoods add new housing that we so desperately need,
the future of a reliable MUNI and safe streets depends
on us today.
Prop B ties Muni’s transportation funding to population growth - a common sense approach to a dependable transportation system for all San Franciscans.
Vote YES on Prop B!
Tim Colen
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING ACTION COALITION*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Tim Colen.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
VOTE YES ON B FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!
YES on B is one of three votes you can make for the
environment, along with Yes on A & No on L.
Private automobiles create one-third of our city’s
carbon pollution, so improving Muni is key to fighting
climate change. Proposition B improves Muni by tying
its operational funding to population growth.
It’s common sense & good for the planet.
Vote YES on B.
San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco League of Conservation Voters.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition B
No Paid Arguments AGAINST Proposition B Were Submitted
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP77
C
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C
77
Children’s Fund; Public Education Enrichment
Fund; Children and Families Council; Rainy
Day Reserve
Shall the City amend the Charter to support services to children, youth,
and their families by extending the Children’s Fund for 25 years and
increasing its funding; extending the Public Education Enrichment Fund
for 26 years; creating an Our Children, Our Families Council; and dividing
the existing Rainy Day Reserve into a City Rainy Day Reserve and a School
District Rainy Day Reserve?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: The City funds services for children,
youth, and their families through various ways, including the Children’s Fund, Public Education Enrichment
Fund, and Rainy Day Reserve.
Children’s Fund
In 1991, San Francisco voters created the Children’s
Fund, which receives a dedicated portion of the property tax that the City collects each year. The current
amount of the set-aside is 3 cents for each $100 of
assessed property value. The City uses the Children’s
Fund to provide services for children under 18 years of
age. These services include child care, health services,
job training, social services, educational, recreational
and cultural programs, and delinquency prevention
services. For fiscal year 2013–14, the City will deposit
approximately $49 million into the Children’s Fund.
The Children’s Fund will expire on June 30, 2016.
Public Education Enrichment Fund
In 2004, San Francisco voters created a Public
Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF). The City Charter
requires the City to contribute a certain amount to
PEEF each year, based on the City’s General Fund revenues. For fiscal year 2013–14, that amount was $77.1
million.
The Charter requires the City to distribute money each
year from PEEF as follows:
• One-third to the San Francisco Unified School
District (School District) for arts, music, sports
and library programs;
• One-third to the City’s Children and Families
Commission for universal preschool programs for
4-year-olds; and
YES
NO
• One-third to the School District for general education purposes.
PEEF will expire on June 30, 2015.
Rainy Day Reserve
The City has a Rainy Day Reserve (Reserve). When the
City’s collections increase by more than 5% over the
year before, the City deposits half of the amount over
5% in the Reserve.
The City may take money out of the Reserve only
when:
• it collects less money than it did in the previous
year. In this case, the money would be used for
City operations.
• the School District collects less money per student than in the previous year and plans significant layoffs. In this case, the City may give up to
25% of the money in the Reserve to the School
District.
The Proposal: Proposition C is a Charter Amendment
that would change the way the City funds and administers services to children, youth, and their families.
Children’s Fund
Proposition C would extend the Children’s Fund and
the property tax set-aside for 25 years, until June 30,
2041. Proposition C would increase the property tax
set-aside gradually over the next four years to 4 cents
for each $100 of assessed property value. The proposal
would not increase or otherwise change property
taxes; it would only affect the amount of property tax
revenues set aside for the Fund.
Proposition C would also extend the age group served
by the Children’s Fund to include youth aged 18
through 24 years old.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
78
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C
Public Education Enrichment Fund
Proposition C would extend PEEF for 26 years, until
June 30, 2041.
Proposition C would extend funding for universal preschool to include 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds, but would still
give priority to 4-year-olds. The City could also use
these funds to develop services for children from birth
to 3 years old.
Our Children, Our Families Council
Proposition C would create an Our Children, Our
Families Council (Council) to advise the City and
School District on the needs of children and families
in San Francisco and on priorities, goals, and best
practices for addressing those needs.
Every five years, the Council would adopt an Our
Children, Our Families Plan to recommend new City
policies and programs for children and families in
San Francisco. The purpose of the Plan is to create a
more coordinated and efficient system of services.
Rainy Day Reserve
Proposition C would divide the existing Rainy Day
Reserve into a City Rainy Day Reserve (City Reserve)
and a School Rainy Day Reserve (School Reserve).
Under the proposal, 25% of future Rainy Day deposits
would go to the School Reserve and 75% would go to
the City Reserve.
Under Proposition C, the School District could withdraw up to half the money in the School Reserve in
years when it expects to collect less money per student than in the previous fiscal year and would have
to lay off a significant number of employees. The
School Board could, by a two-thirds’ vote, override
those limits and withdraw any amount in the School
Reserve in any year.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want the
City to amend the Charter to support services to
children, youth, and their families by:
• extending the Children’s Fund for 25 years and
increasing its funding;
• extending the Public Education Enrichment Fund
for 26 years;
• creating an Our Children, Our Families Council;
and
• dividing the existing Rainy Day Reserve into a
City Rainy Day Reserve and a School Rainy Day
Reserve.
38-EN-N14-CP78
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
the City to reauthorize the Children’s Fund and the
Public Education Enrichment Fund or to make these
changes to the Charter.
Controller’s Statement on “C”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition C:
Should the proposed charter amendment be approved
by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government.
The proposed amendment would change the current
Children’s Fund, Children’s Baseline and Public
Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF) requirements in the
Charter by increasing the existing property tax setaside which funds children’s services, increasing the
City’s general fund contribution to the PEEF and creating a separate City-funded School Rainy Day Reserve.
The proposed amendment would establish these setasides and the reserve for a new 26 year period,
through June 30, 2041. The total annual increased
funding from the City’s General Fund to children’s services and public education would be approximately
$21 million and there would be a one-time transfer of
$16.6 million to the School Reserve in 2015.
The Children’s Fund and Children’s Baseline
The current set-aside of property taxes for children’s
services is three cents per hundred dollars of assessed
property value, equal to $49.1 million as of the last fiscal year (FY) 2013–14. The amendment proposes an
increase to four cents, adding approximately $16.3
million to the set-aside for an estimated new total of
approximately $65.4 million annually.
Property tax revenue is currently available for any
public purpose and as these funds are shifted to children’s programs, other City spending would have to
be reduced or new revenues identified to maintain
current service levels. The proposed increase in this
property tax set-aside would also decrease the City’s
discretionary revenue and therefore affect other City
programs with baseline budget amounts tied to that
figure. Baseline budget amounts for the Municipal
Transportation Agency, the Library, and the PEEF
would be reduced by an aggregate amount of $2.4
million.
The Charter requires that in addition to the property
tax set-aside, the City also maintain the same levels of
spending on children’s services as existed before the
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP79
set-aside (the Children’s Baseline) and grow that
spending each year at the same rate as the City’s discretionary revenue grows. This requirement would be
continued in the proposed amendment. The Children’s
Baseline required amount was approximately $128
million in the last fiscal year.
The Public Education Enrichment Fund and Baseline
The current required City contribution for the PEEF is
$77.1 million annually and is tied to the increases in
City discretionary revenue. The City makes the contribution with $72.7 million in cash and $4.4 million in
“in-kind” services, such as school nurse programs provided by the Department of Public Health. The proposed amendment would remove the authorization to
provide a portion of the contribution though in-kind
services and thereby add $4.4 million to the City’s cash
requirement.
The Charter currently allows the City to temporarily
hold back up to 25% of its required contribution to the
PEEF in years when a City budget deficit of $100 million or greater is forecast. The full amount must still be
paid during the authorized period of the fund. This
hold back provision allows the Mayor and Board of
Supervisors some flexibility for balancing the City’s
budget in difficult years and was used in the most
recent economic downturn. This provision would be
deleted in the proposed amendment.
The Charter requires that in addition to the required
PEEF contribution, the City also maintain the same
levels of spending on public education and early childhood programs as existed previously (the PEEF
Baseline) and grow that level each year at the same
rate as the City’s discretionary revenue grows. This
requirement would be continued in the proposed
amendment. The PEEF Baseline required amount was
approximately $7.3 million in the last fiscal year.
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C
79
Day Reserve and 75% of the required deposits would
remain with the City reserve. Withdrawals from the
School Reserve would be under the authority of the
School Board. In addition, 50% of the existing balance
in the Rainy Day Reserve as of January 1, 2015 would
be allocated to the new School Reserve on a one-time
basis, an amount estimated to be approximately $16.6
million.
Finally, the proposed measure would set aside funds
for children’s services and public education that would
otherwise be available for any public purpose. The
amendment does not identify new revenue sources for
this set-aside and other City spending would therefore
have to be reduced or new sources of funding identified to maintain current service levels. This proposed
Charter amendment is not in compliance with a nonbinding, voter-adopted city policy which states that
any new set-aside shall identify adequate new revenue
sources to cover its cost and shall expire after ten
years.
How “C” Got on the Ballot
On July 15, 2014, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to
0 to place Proposition C on the ballot. The Supervisors
voted as follows:
Yes: Avalos, Breed, Campos, Chiu, Cohen, Farrell, Kim,
Mar, Tang, Wiener, Yee.
No: None.
The Rainy Day Reserve and School Reserve
The proposed amendment would create a new School
Rainy Day Reserve separate from the City’s Rainy Day
Reserve. Currently, required deposits are made to a
single Rainy Day Reserve in any budget year when
General Fund revenues are projected to grow more
than five percent. Withdrawals for the use of the
School District are under the authority of the Mayor
and the Board of Supervisors and can be made in any
year when per pupil revenues are projected to
decrease from the prior year, subject to certain limits.
The proposed amendment would instead allocate 25%
of the required deposits directly to a new School Rainy
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
80
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C
38-EN-N14-CP80
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition C
The Board of Supervisors and Mayor are proud to
unanimously support Prop C, the “Children and
Families First” Initiative, to strengthen public education and support services for children, youth, and families in San Francisco, while increasing accountability
and oversight of public funding.
With no increase to taxes, Proposition C reauthorizes
the highly successful Children’s Fund and Public
Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF). Proposition C
maximizes our City’s existing revenue sources to continue and deepen investment in our children and
young people. If we don’t act now $125 million will be
removed from children’s services in San Francisco
each year, a price our children simply can’t afford.
Prop C also establishes a citywide “Our Children, Our
Families” Council, bringing together a broad crosssection of experts from city departments, SFUSD, and
the community to streamline, coordinate, and ensure
quality programming and services.
San Francisco voters improved the lives of generations of children with the passage of PEEF in 2004 and
the nationally-acclaimed Children’s Fund in 1991 and
2001. PEEF provides critical funding for preschool;
sports, libraries, art, music, and school health centers;
and other vital educational programming not funded
by the state of California.
We can’t stop now. We need to do everything we can
to provide high quality education and enrichment
opportunities for all of our children and youth, make
San Francisco livable for our families, and ensure that
those with the most need are given the best opportunity to thrive. San Francisco’s future depends on it.
Vote Yes on Prop C and join us in investing in the children and youth of San Francisco.
Mayor Edwin Lee
Supervisor Norman Yee
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor Jane Kim
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor Katy Tang
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor David Chiu
Supervisor London Breed
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition C
Should people up to age 24 be treated as children?
That’s the direction sponsors of Proposition C are
headed. The measure labels 18 to 24 year old adults as
“Transitional-Aged Youth”.
The politicians behind this plan are in “handout”
mode now, but labeling people as “Transitional-Aged
Youth” could later be used to take away rights of
young people.
It’s not hard to imagine some future measure restricting persons designated in city programs as
Transitional-Aged Youth from fully engaging in “adult”
activities.
Let government treat you like a child so you can be eligible for more “free” stuff, and you may soon find
them treating you like a child in ways that aren’t so
nice.
Restricting the use of taxpayer money for decades to
come isn’t such a hot idea either. If Proposition C
passes, millions of dollars more will be removed from
the discretionary part of the municipal budget. Does
anyone really know what the needs of San Francisco
or the city’s economic situation will be in 2040?
Respect the dignity of young adults in San Francisco.
Vote no on Proposition C.
Young adults want more bottom-up solutions and
reduced barriers to economic participation and entrepreneurship, not more top-down programs.
¡Si se puede sin gobierno!
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
www.LPSF.org
Treating people like dependent children isn’t only risky
for those affected. There’s ample reason to doubt
whether creating a new category of adults in San
Francisco to be dependent on government services is
really in the city’s best interests.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP81
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition C
81
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition C
<satire>
Thank you for coming out today to learn why you need
to vote for The “Children and Families First” initiative.
The title is a little cloying?
Yes, well, can’t be helped. What’d you expect us to call
it?
The “Gays and Singles Last” initiative? Come on,
that’s not good politics! A little sugar-coating never
hurts.
No, NOT in sodas! Sugar-coating EXCEPT in sodas!
See here, the important thing is -What? Didn’t you read through the 50-page legislation? Right here, page 4, it explains this proposal is
“essential in ensuring the health and success of every
San Francisco child.”
You don’t really believe a slush fund cooked up in City
Hall is all that stands between the children of San
Francisco and the possibility of tragic illness and failure!?
Dear me, where’s your faith in government? Aren’t you
a loyal, bleeding-heart constituent who always votes
“yes” on any measure we kick down to you that has
the word “children” or “schools” in the title?
Yes, we promise the money will be frugally spent.
We’re your Supervisors! When have we ever lied to
you?
Yes, only for its stated purposes. Yes we pinkie-swear!
No, I’m not crossing my fingers, I just like to keep my
hands behind my back. Oh very well!
No, that bump in my shoe isn’t me crossing my toes! I
have a bunion. I do!
Look, why are you making such a fuss? This is routine.
Six months from now you’ll have forgotten all about
it. A year from now you’ll be ready to eat some more
pork – er, I mean vote for another vital initiative to
invest in our future.
But you MUST vote for the “Children and Families
First” initiative. Why it’s... “For The Children!”™
</satire>
Starchild
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition C
San Francisco’s future depends on how we take care
of our youth today. Investments in high-quality education and support services for our children come back
to us many times over by growing our economy,
building a skilled work force, reducing wealth gaps,
and developing the next generation of artists, educators, health care providers, entrepreneurs, engineers,
and community leaders.
Our city has come together repeatedly to stand up for
children, including passage of the Children’s Fund and
Public Education Enrichment Fund. These funds are
about to expire and must be extended, in order to protect critical investments in preschool, arts, music,
sports, libraries, college and career counseling, health
services, violence prevention, and many other areas
that profoundly shape our young people’s experiences
and future prospects.
More than ever, our schools, City government and
community-based organizations are working closely
together to connect services, share information, and
align resources. Stronger collaborations and accountability will be built by “Our Children, Our Families”
Council.
We are fortunate to live in a city with a strong and
growing economy. We also have a responsibility to
make sure our current prosperity lasts and is shared
widely. Continuing to invest a modest, targeted portion of our resources in high quality education and
youth programs will ultimately benefit all San
Franciscans.
Please join us in supporting Proposition C.
Richard Carranza, Superintendent*
San Francisco Board of Education:
Sandra Lee Fewer, President
Emily Murase, Ph.D., Vice President
Matt Haney
Kim-Shree Maufas
Hydra Mendoza
Rachel Norton
Jill Wynns
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
82
Paid Arguments – Proposition C
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
The San Francisco electorate makes our city proud. It
has supported children since 1991 when we became
the first city in the country to guarantee funding for
children every year in the city budget. Since then, the
Children’s Fund has touched the lives of almost every
family in the city.
Proposition C will help meet basic needs of families
and youth, offer safe places to learn and play, ensure
children are ready for school and ready for careers,
and provide opportunities for creativity and leadership.
Our children need us now more than ever. Let’s continue to make San Francisco a city that cares about our
next generation. And let’s inspire communities around
the country to step up for their children and youth.
Margaret Brodkin
Child Advocate
Honored as “Mother of the Children’s Fund” by the
Board of Supervisors, 2011
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Margaret Brodkin.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
The San Francisco Democratic Party urges all residents
to vote YES on Proposition C to secure guaranteed
funding for the future of children’s services in San
Francisco.
In 1991 San Francisco became the first city in the
nation to provide guaranteed funding for children’s
services and with your support we can continue to
deliver world class education services for our future
generations.
We need to make sure we are protecting and supporting our most vulnerable populations. Prop C is part of
that solution, investing in ways to make this city
affordable, accessible, and enriching for our children
and young people.
Proposition C combines the efforts of existing city
agencies to increase accountability, coordination and
oversight. It will create a one stop shop to make
access to services easier for families. It strikes the
right balance between fiscal responsibility and making
critical investments in San Francisco’s future.
Yes on C for a family-friendly future for San Francisco.
38-EN-N14-CP82
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Democratic Party.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
Research has demonstrated that every dollar invested
in preschool for at-risk children reaps somewhere
between eight and nine dollars in return. Investing in
our youngest residents is the opposite of a luxury: it is
one of the wisest and most prudent financial moves
we can make as a city.
The evidence of the need for preschool education is
undeniable: adults who attended preschool are 20%
more likely to graduate from high school and 19% less
likely to be incarcerated. In addition, they do better at
work, are more likely to remain married, and are far
less dependent on welfare programs. High quality
early childhood education is an essential first step
towards eliminating historic social inequalities and
making sure we have healthy, strong, engaged,
curious, active and resourceful young people in every
neighborhood in San Francisco.
Prop C will expand the current allocation for universal
preschool so we can retain and deepen quality while
serving more young people over a longer period of
time. These improvements will ensure we stay on the
vanguard of doing right by our youngest and most
vulnerable residents, while continuing to lead the way
for the nation in early childhood education.
As a city, we have a duty to ensure that every child
has a chance. Prop C makes sure give them that
chance. Vote Yes on Prop C, so that our children
develop the linguistic, cognitive, social and emotional
building blocks they need in order to thrive throughout their lives. Prop C is the best investment we can
make in our future.
Candace Wong
Chair, SF Child Care Planning and Advisory Council*
San Francisco Family Childcare Association
Supervisor Norman Yee
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
San Francisco Democratic Party
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP83
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
Far too often, LGBT youth are victimized in spaces that
should otherwise be safe. Physical abuse and family
rejection in the home alongside abuse and harassment in school are leading contributors to the disproportionate rates of homelessness.
As many as 50 % of teens had parents who reacted
negatively to them coming out and 1 in 3 youth report
skipping a class or an entire day of school because
they feel unsafe, compared to just 5% for non-LGBT
youth.
The Children’s Fund supports programs that build
safety in our schools and provide community support
for youth who come out, without Proposition C, funds
that support these efforts will disappear.
This measure expands the Children’s Fund to ensure
that all youth up to age 24 have improved access to
counseling, education, employment and other services
that provide opportunity and support their transition
into successful adults.
Prop C will support this especially vulnerable portion
of our population of young people, making crucial
investments in their health and well-being, and
helping to close the gap for those less fortunate as
they transition into adulthood.
The investments we make today will ensure that all
our children and young people get the support they
need no matter what their background or lifestyle.
Vote yes on C!
Rebecca Rolfe, Executive Director, San Francisco
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center*
Denis B. David, Deputy Director, Lavender Youth
Recreation and Information Center (LYRIC)
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
Tech and Community Leaders Unite on Prop C!
San Francisco is historically known for its progressive
values and most recently, its innovation. We want San
Francisco to be equally recognized for forward-think-
Paid Arguments – Proposition C
83
ing policies on keeping families and children thriving
in this growing city.
Prop C will continue to invest and maximize millions
of dollars to keep successful after-school, job-training
placement, youth training development, and violence
prevention programs alive throughout every neighborhood in our City.
The Children’s Fund and PEEF are preparing our children for the future with out-of-school job training and
placement programs with many focusing on science,
math, technology, and engineering skills. No young
person should be let down due to lack of resources to
learn, engage, and enrich their educational experiences.
A Vote for our Youth Is a Vote for Our Future.
Vote Yes on C!
San Francisco Citizens Initiative for Technology &
Innovation
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
JVS Says Yes on Proposition C
For more than 40 years, JVS has provided job training
and placement services to those most in need. We
know firsthand that San Francisco’s economic recovery has been uneven at best. That’s why we’re supporting Proposition C, renewal of the Children’s Fund.
The Children’s Fund, established in 1991, expires in
2016 unless extended by voters. It provides critical services - including after school, and violence prevention
programs to tens of thousands of San Francisco youth
and their families.
Proposition C is also critical to maintaining funds for
youth employment, and wisely expands the eligibility
age from 18 to 24 years old, so the city can invest in
job training and employment for older youth. Recent
studies have confirmed teens aged 16-19 and young
adults aged 20-24 have been among the most
adversely affected by the country’s constricting labor
market since the recession. Sadly, young adults aged
18 to 34 have experienced double-digit unemployment
rates for more than six years. The youngest workers
are even worse off, with unemployment rates well
over twice the national average. JVS knows finding
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
84
Paid Arguments – Proposition C
38-EN-N14-CP84
and keeping a job is an important step in a young person’s successful transition to adulthood and economic
independence.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
Today, San Francisco is struggling with unprecedented
inequality, rapidly becoming a city of the wealthy and
the poor, with young adults and the middle class families being squeezed out. In fact, in San Francisco, 9000
youth ages 18-24 are neither working nor in school.
Proposition C helps bridge this gap by providing
essential services such as skills training, job placement, and educational supports for at-risk youth. Let’s
keep San Francisco a city in which we can all succeed!
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
JVS urges you to Vote yes on Proposition C
Abby Snay, Executive Director, Jewish Vocational
Service
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
On behalf of teachers and parents in San Francisco we
urge all voters to support Proposition C and join us in
a unified approach to the future of education and children’s services in San Francisco.
One thing we can all agree on is that funding for children’s services is a vital part of the city’s budget and
since their inception; both the Children’s fund and the
Public Education Enrichment Fund have delivered for
children and young people in San Francisco.
Proposition C will extend the education and children’s
support services funded by the city to more children
than ever before. It will allow easier access for families
in need and increase coordination between city
departments.
Investing in our children’s futures is a win for teachers,
a win for parents and most importantly a win for our
children.
Vote Yes on C!
United Educators of San Francisco
Mashakira Maddison, Executive Director, Parents for
Public Schools San Francisco
San Francisco Parents Political Action Committee (SF
Parent PAC)
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
What do artist Ruth Asawa, actor Danny Glover, musician Jerry Garcia, photographer Ansel Adams, dancer
Isadora Duncan, comedienne Carol Channing,
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, author Daniel
Handler, and coach Mike Holmgren, all have in
common? These visionary and accomplished individuals are among the extraordinary sons and daughters
of San Francisco.
Whose names will we add to this remarkable list in
years to come? Prop C will help us make sure San
Francisco remains a cultural capital of the world, and
that our list of creative, athletic, and social leaders
continues to grow. With Prop C, we can ensure that
every child and young person in San Francisco has
access to an education that explores their full potential
and engages them in the wide array of sports, arts,
music, and cultural experiences our community has to
offer.
For more than a decade, the Public Education and
Enrichment Fund, has given San Francisco’s students
access to an education that adds up to far more than
the ability to count or write a coherent sentence. It has
put art teachers, librarians, athletic coaches, and physical education teachers in every school.
Right now, somewhere in this city, the next Willie
Mays is gearing up for practice; the next Maya
Angelou is revising a first draft; and the next Carlos
Santana is tuning his guitar. They, along with thousands of other students, are healthier, more engaged,
and more creative as a result of our investments.
San Francisco is worldwide mecca for arts, culture,
and sports. Let’s make sure our schools reflect this
legacy.
Vote Yes on Prop C.
Golden State Warriors
Neal Benezra, Director San Francisco Museum of
Modern Art
Ruth Felt, President, San Francisco Performances
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP85
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
On behalf of the Children’s Funding Community
Coalition, which includes over fifty community-based
organizations in SF, we urge you to vote Yes on
Proposition C. As longtime advocates for children,
youth and families in San Francisco, we see Prop C as
a powerful statement about our city’s commitment to
the next generation.
For decades, we have fought to make sure that young
people and families in the city have access to the services they need to be successful, like child care, afterschool programs, jobs for youth, family support
centers, violence prevention programs, and school
based services. In a city that is increasingly expensive,
our families and their children depend on these programs to not only survive, but thrive in their own city!
San Francisco is on the map nationally as the first city
to create this kind of landmark legislation that sets
aside such a significant investment in children, youth
and their families. Tom Ammiano and Margaret
Brodkin, the visionaries and “parents” of the original
measures, fought for these funds to create stability in
services for our kids. As Brodkin once said, “A strong
community network of services can provide the essential supports that will enable the next generation of
San Franciscans to lead productive, healthy and fulfilling lives.”
This is our legacy. This is for our children. Vote YES
on C.
Chelsea Boilard, Director of Programs, Coleman
Advocates for Children & Youth
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
Latino Community Leaders Support Children: Yes
on C!
We enthusiastically support Prop C to continue the
great work of the Children’s Fund and Public Education
Fund in San Francisco. Our public schools, child care
programs, and after-school programs are essential to
raising families in our community.
Over 17% of Latino children live in low-income households. With the rising costs of living, we must do
everything we can to ensure the safety and success of
our children.
Paid Arguments – Proposition C
85
Last year the Children’s Fund and the Public Education
Enrichment Fund spent more than $125 million in local
communities, and without Prop C we could see cuts to
these critical services.
Prop C guarantee funding for the next 25 years, so we
can support sports, library, arts, and bilingual services
in our public schools and continue investing in out-ofschool programs that keep our children engaged and
on track for graduation.
Let’s keep San Francisco a home for all our families!
Vote Yes on C!
Tracy Brown, Mission Peace Collaborative*
Mission Economic Development agency
Erick Arguello, Calle 24*
Estela Garcia, Instituto Familiar De la Roza
San Francisco Latino Democratic Club
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
San Francisco is a beautiful city, but the cost of living
and other issues have led to the outmigration of too
many families of color, in particular African American
families. For those still here, African American children
are facing some of the toughest obstacles to success
in terms of education, jobs, housing, and the criminal
justice system.
Proposition C will continue and deepen the necessary
support for our communities and our children, from
infancy through young adulthood. With job training,
afterschool, sports, arts and violence prevention programs, our children will have more support, safer
schools and neighborhoods, and increased opportunities to be successful and explore their dreams.
Vote Yes on C!
Lyslynn Lacoste*
Dr Amos C. Brown, Pastor, Third Baptist Church*
Shamann Walton, Executive Director, YCD*
Espanola Jackson*
Diane Gray, Executive Director, Bayview Association
for Youth*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
86
Paid Arguments – Proposition C
38-EN-N14-CP86
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition C
“As members of the Asian/Pacific Islander community
we urge you to vote Yes on Proposition C – a unified
approach to providing the best possible education and
community services for children and youth in San
Francisco.”
“In San Francisco, 35% of San Franciscans livings in
poverty are Asian/Pacific Islander (API). Between 2007
and 2012, API’s living in poverty grew by 43%, more
than any other racial group in the City. We must act
now to expand services for children and youth to
ensure they have the resources necessary to grow into
healthy adults.”
“The Children’s Fund and the Public Education
Enrichment Fund provide critical services and resources for our City’s children and youth. Without
Proposition C these services and resources would disappear.”
“Proposition C will increase funding for education and
children’s services to help every child succeed, regardless of their background and will help make San
Francisco one of the best places in the country to raise
a family.
“Vote Yes on C”
Jeff Mori
Rev. Norman Fong
Jenny Lam
Anni Yuet-Kuen Chung
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on C.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Recology, 2. PAC Residential Builders, 3. 943
Justice Investors.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition C
No Paid Arguments AGAINST Proposition C Were Submitted
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
88
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition D
D
38-EN-N14-CP88
Retiree Health Benefits for Former
Redevelopment Agency and
Successor Agency Employees
Shall the City amend the Charter to make retiree health care benefits
available to certain employees of the former San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency and the Successor Agency?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: In January 2009, the City and
County of San Francisco established the Retiree Health
Care Trust Fund (Fund) to pay for the health care costs
of retirees from City service and their spouses or
domestic partners.
City employees hired on or before January 9, 2009,
are eligible for full retiree health care coverage after
five years of service. City employees hired on or after
January 10, 2009, are eligible for full retiree health
care coverage after 20 years of service.
City employees who started working on or after
January 10, 2009, pay 2% of their compensation into
the Fund. City employees who started working on or
before January 9, 2009, will start paying 0.25% of
compensation after July 1, 2016, increasing to 1% of
compensation after July 1, 2019.
The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
(Redevelopment Agency) was a state agency that promoted economic revitalization and affordable housing
in San Francisco. On February 1, 2012, the California
Legislature dissolved all redevelopment agencies
throughout the State. A Successor Agency was created
to wind down the affairs of the Redevelopment
Agency.
Since 2009, eight former employees of the
Redevelopment Agency and the Successor Agency
have become City employees, and approximately 42
others might become City employees by March 2015.
Most of these employees must work for the City for 20
years to receive full retiree health care coverage, and
must also pay 2% of their compensation into the Fund.
YES
NO
The Proposal: Proposition D is a Charter amendment
that would grant certain former Redevelopment
Agency and Successor Agency employees the same
health benefits as City employees hired during the
same period.
Under Proposition D, employees who started working
for the Redevelopment Agency before January 10,
2009, and later started working for the City between
February 1, 2012, and February 28, 2015, without a
break in service, would be eligible for full retiree
health care coverage after five years of employment
with the City, the Redevelopment Agency, and/or the
Successor Agency combined.
For employees who started working for the
Redevelopment Agency between January 10, 2009,
and August 31, 2010, and later started working for the
City between February 1, 2012, and February 28, 2015,
without a break in service, Proposition D would credit
the employees’ years working for the former
Redevelopment Agency and the Successor Agency
toward the 20-year vesting period for retiree health
care benefits.
Under Proposition D, employees who started working
for the Redevelopment Agency before January 10,
2009, and then started working for the City before
March 1, 2015, without a break in service would pay
0.25% of compensation into the Fund after July 1,
2016, increasing to 1% of compensation after July 1,
2019, rather than 2% of compensation.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to
change the Charter to make retiree health care benefits
available to certain employees of the former San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Successor
Agency.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
to make these changes to the Charter.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP89
Controller’s Statement on “D”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition D:
Should the proposed charter amendment be approved
by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government. The proposed
Charter amendment would increase the City’s costs to
fund retiree health benefits for certain employees of
the former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
(SFRDA) in the event that they become City employees. The total cost would range widely depending on
many factors including the pay rates of the employees, their years of service, retirement decisions and
eventual hiring decisions by the City.
The proposed amendment could affect the status of
up to 50 people who were employed by the SFRDA
before it was dissolved by state mandate and who
now are, or may become, employees of the City. Most
of the individuals are currently employees of the
Office of City Infrastructure and Investment (OCII), the
agency established following the dissolution of the
SFRDA.
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition D
89
As with most costs for OCII staff, the cost of these
benefits is expected to be eligible to be paid for from
developer fees generated by development projects
under OCII management and from additional property
tax revenue (tax increment). Approximately 65% of
property tax revenues would ordinarily go directly to
the City’s General Fund.
How “D” Got on the Ballot
On July 22, 2014, the Board of Supervisors voted 10 to
0 to place Proposition D on the ballot. The Supervisors
voted as follows:
Yes: Breed, Campos, Chiu, Cohen, Farrell, Kim, Mar,
Tang, Wiener, Yee.
No: None.
Excused: Avalos.
City employees hired after 2009 currently contribute
2% of payroll into a trust fund for retiree health costs.
Employees hired before 2009 will pay into this fund at
lower rates beginning in fiscal year 2016–17. City
employees hired after 2009 receive City funding for
health benefits when they retire at levels from 50% to
100% of premium costs based on their years of service
and they must retire from the City to receive this funding. Employees hired before 2009 generally receive
fully paid health benefits when they retire after only
five years of working for the City and receive these
benefits regardless of whether they continue to work,
and eventually retire from, City employment.
In general, the amendment would treat any OCII
employees hired by the City between January 31, 2012
and March 1, 2015 as having begun City employment
from the date of their earlier employment with SFRDA
before 2009. In effect, should these OCII employees
become City employees, their payroll contributions to
the retiree health care trust fund will be less than they
would have been without the amendment, and a
greater share of their health care premium cost after
retirement will be paid by the City. For a typical
employee who works an additional 20 years and
retires from the City the increased cost to the City
under the proposed Charter amendment would be in
the range of $75,000 in today’s dollars and this cost
would be spread over many years.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
90
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition D
38-EN-N14-CP90
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition D
Proponents Argument in Favor of Proposition D
Yes on Proposition D - Health Benefits for Former
Redevelopment Agency/ Successor Agency Employees
This measure resolves an unintended consequence of
the State’s decision to eliminate redevelopment agencies. It is a fair and narrowly crafted way to make sure
that the people coordinating the City’s most important
economic development and affordable housing projects including the development of Mission Bay, the
Transbay Terminal, Hunters Point Shipyard and
Candlestick Point get fair treatment.
Unfortunately, due to technical issues in State law and
the City Charter, employees at the former Redevelopment Agency who become permanent City employees
will lose credit for their years of service to San
Francisco unless this change to the Charter is
approved.
While this is a small issue and a minor expense for the
City, it is a matter of enormous consequence for the
fewer than 50 affected employees and their families.
Additionally, there is the possibility that some or all of
the costs of this measure could be reimbursed from
the tax increment generated by approved projects
pending State approval. Importantly this measure contains strong provisions that prevent these employees
from double dipping. This measure also clarifies that
employees may register domestic partnerships either
under San Francisco law and procedures, or under the
law of the City, County or State in which they reside.
The statewide elimination of redevelopment was a
blunt instrument with far-reaching consequences,
most of which are beyond the control of local jurisdictions. This is one we have the power to correct.
Vote Yes on Proposition D!
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Malia Cohen
Norman Yee
Scott Wiener
David Chiu
London Breed
Mark Farrell
Eric Mar
Jane Kim
David Campos
John Avalos
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition D
FAREWELL TO REDEVELOPMENT. IT DID LITTLE GOOD
AND GREAT DAMAGE TO SAN FRANCISCO:
In the late 1960’s, I was driving west through the
Western Addition to my Sunset home. Along Sutter
Street I parked my automobile for half an hour to look
at the three and four story Victorian housing and 19th
century apartment buildings that would soon be swept
away by Redevelopment.
Though boarded up, many of the Sutter Street structures were still beautiful. The great 1906 Fire had been
stopped at Van Ness Avenue. This area had survived—
with close ties to the City’s history as America’s western port and a product of the 1848—1849 Gold Rush.
Thanks, Redevelopment!
woman who worked for the Sisters of Mercy, Mary
Tracy. She became my great grandmother. They both
survived the 1906 Earthquake and Fire, but Mary died
soon after. Thomas’ life ended on Election Day, 1912,
exiting local history.
I don’t think we owe too much to Redevelopment’s
employees.
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J-D
United States President’s Executive Awards (1988)*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Originally from Ireland, my great grandfather Thomas
Faulkner became an American citizen before the New
York Court of Common Pleas in 1856, voted for
Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and 1864 because he didn’t
like slavery, married a girl in New York, but lost her
and their baby in childbirth.
Thomas came to San Francisco by way of Panama in
1866, working at Selby’s preparing gold and silver bars
for the Old San Francisco Mint. He met an Irish
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP91
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition D
91
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition D
BOTH IN SAN FRANCISCO AND STATEWIDE THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES HAVE DONE A LOT OF
HARM AND LITTLE GOOD. NO SUCCESSOR AGENCY
SHOULD BE INFLICTED ON SAN FRANCISCO:
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
Golden Gate Taxpayers Association Chairman
California Governor Brown was right to oppose the
socially-exploitive Redevelopment Agencies.
Redevelopment wrecked the Fillmore District of San
Francisco. No successor is wanted or needed.
Redevelopment has caused lots of damage on neighborhoods across the State of California, doing little
except making money for greedy and politically wellconnected developers. It has been bad news.
Redevelopment has destroyed historical buildings and
driven many of the poor out of their homes.
Redevelopment has been a long parade of mistaken
programs and truely awful political leadership, inflicting lots of suffering on families and tax losses on cities. Almost everything went wrong.
Redevelopment has been a bad dream for San
Francisco. There were no victories to remember.
Vote AGAINST Redevelopment and Proposition “D”.
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition D
Proponents Rebuttal Argument in Favor of Proposition D
Yes on Proposition D - Health Benefits for Former
Redevelopment Agency/Successor Agency Employees
Don’t be fooled. This measure does not restore,
impose or extend redevelopment or its Successor
Agency.
Don’t be fooled! Nothing in Proposition D brings back
redevelopment or `imposes’ a Successor Agency.
Redevelopment was abolished by the Legislature in
2012. Proposition D solves an unintended conflict
between state law and the City Charter as a result of
the dissolution of redevelopment.
Proposition D is unanimously supported by the
Board of Supervisors, endorsed by the San Francisco
Democratic Party, SPUR and the San Francisco
Labor Council. For more information visit
www.voteyesonpropd.com
It is a narrowly written measure to make sure that the
people coordinating the City’s most important economic development and affordable housing projects
get fair treatment while these projects are being completed. These projects are important to create jobs and
to build desperately needed affordable housing for
low and middle-income residents.
Unless the Charter is changed, employees at the former redevelopment agency who may become permanent City employees will lose credit for their years of
service to San Francisco. Some who are close to
retirement age will be forced to start over with no
credit for their previous service.
Vote Yes on Proposition D!
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Malia Cohen
Norman Yee
Eric Mar
London Breed
Jane Kim
John Avalos
Scott Wiener
David Campos
David Chiu
Mark Farrell
Katy Tang
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
92
Paid Arguments – Proposition D
38-EN-N14-CP92
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D
I’ve been involved with the Hunter’s Point Shipyard
project and have worked closely with these employees
since 1991.
As a current shipyard tenant and small business
owner, I have firsthand experience with the necessary
and critical work these individuals do to make sure
businesses are able to stay at the Shipyard. Their hard
work, dedication and focus has kept my business in
the Bayview and in San Francisco.
I have been working with these public servants for
years to improve the lives of Bayview residents. The
relationships this staff has built with Bayview residents are very important to the future success of all
the housing for low and middle income residents connected with the Hunters Point Shipyard project. These
employees are the face of the project. It is through
their good work and follow-through that they have
proven they care about the community—and the community trusts them.
I encourage you to please vote YES on Proposition D
to help these employees who strive to keep San
Franciscans working.
Please vote YES on Proposition D to make sure we
treat these public servants well as they treat the citizens of San Francisco.
Scott Madison
Business Owner & Longtime Shipyard Tenant
Jerald Joseph
President, Bayview Opera House
President, LaSalle Heights Homeowners Association*
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: IFPTE Local 21, Issues PAC.
The true source recipient committee is funded by member
contributions.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D
I am the former project manager of Transbay, and have
had the opportunity to work with the employees of the
former redevelopment agency. I know first-hand how
essential their work is to ensure completion of these
important projects to create hundreds of good-paying
jobs, build housing for low and middle-income residents, and make it easier for people to get to work.
When California eliminated the agency in 2012, half of
the staff were laid off, and the remaining 50 employees carried forward the work even after being put in a
very difficult situation.
Prop D will allow these important public servants to
make the transition to the City and ensure that they
can continue their work promoting affordable housing
and economic development for the citizens of San
Francisco.
Please Vote YES on Proposition D for these hardworking people, their families, and the future of San
Francisco.
Mike Grisso
Former Senior Project Manager, Transbay
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: IFPTE Local 21, Issues PAC.
The true source recipient committee is funded by member
contributions.
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: IFPTE Local 21, Issues PAC.
The true source recipient committee is funded by member
contributions.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D
As a professional artist working in San Francisco, I
know that rising real estate prices and skyrocketing
rents are pushing fellow artists and galleries out of the
City.
For two decades, the staff of the former redevelopment agency has been working to preserve the studio
spaces of the 280 artists who work out of Hunters
Point Shipyard. Without the hard work of these
employees, San Francisco simply would no longer be
able to provide affordable spaces for dedicated and
talented artists to continue to work here. The former
redevelopment agency employees worked hard to preserve this unique cultural asset for the City of San
Francisco.
Please vote YES on Proposition D to help the employees whose work keeps the arts in San Francisco.
Stacey Carter
Hunters Point Shipyard Artist (since 1998)
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: IFPTE Local 21, Issues PAC.
The true source recipient committee is funded by member
contributions.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP93
Paid Arguments – Proposition D
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D
Proposition D is endorsed by the San Francisco
Democratic Party, the San Francisco Labor Council,
the San Francisco Building Trades Council, SPUR and
our union because it is fair to everyone.
Insuring that the 50 affected employees are able to get
affordable health care will help them remain healthy
after they retire and are better able to afford to live in
San Francisco.
Proposition D prevents double dipping or extra benefits to the covered employees.
Proposition D was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors to solve a
problem caused by technical issues in the City Charter.
Please Vote YES on Proposition D.
Read more about Proposition D at
www.VoteYesOnPropD.com
Dean Coate, President
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: IFPTE Local 21 Issues PAC.
The true source recipient committee is funded by member
contributions.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition D
San Francisco Democratic Party Argument in Favor of
Proposition D
Proposition D is needed to reverse one of the consequences of the State’s dissolution of Redevelopment
by solving an unintended conflict between state law
and the City Charter.
Vote Yes on Proposition D!
San Francisco Democratic Party
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Democratic Party.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition D
No Paid Arguments AGAINST Proposition D Were Submitted
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
93
94
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E
E
38-EN-N14-CP94
Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
Shall the City collect a tax of 2 cents per ounce from the distributors of
sugar-sweetened beverages to fund health, nutrition, physical education
and active recreation programs?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: The City does not impose a tax on
the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages.
Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked
to serious health problems.
The Proposal: Proposition E would place a tax of 2
cents per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages to
fund health, nutrition, physical education and active
recreation programs.
A sugar-sweetened beverage is a beverage that contains added sugar and 25 or more calories per 12
ounces, including some soft drinks, sports drinks, iced
tea, juice drinks and energy drinks. The tax would also
apply to syrups and powders that can be made into
sugar-sweetened beverages in a beverage-dispensing
machine, such as fountain drinks.
The distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages in San
Francisco would be responsible for paying the tax.
Some beverages would not be subject to the tax, even
if they contain added sugar. These include:
• Diet sodas;
• Milk, soy milk, rice milk and almond milk;
• Beverages that contain only natural fruit and
vegetable juice;
• Infant formula;
• Meal replacements, supplemental nutrition
products and weight reduction beverages; and
• Syrups and powders sold for mixing by individuals to make sugar-sweetened beverages.
The San Francisco Unified School District, Department
of Public Health, and Recreation and Park Department
must use the proceeds of this tax to fund health, nutrition, physical education and active recreation programs. The funds must be used only for new or
expanded programs. Up to 2 percent of the tax proceeds could be used to administer the funds.
YES
NO
A 15-member Healthy Nutrition and Physical Activity
Access Fund Committee would advise the Mayor, the
Board of Supervisors and City departments about how
to spend the funds.
Because the proceeds from the tax are dedicated to
specific purposes, approval of this measure requires
two-thirds of the votes cast.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want the
City to collect a tax of 2 cents per ounce from the distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages to fund health,
nutrition, physical education and active recreation programs.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
the City to collect this tax.
Controller’s Statement on “E”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition E:
Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the
voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant
impact on government costs and revenues.
The ordinance provides for a tax of two cents per fluid
ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages sold in San
Francisco, with the tax revenue dedicated to funding
nutrition and health programs. Depending on consumer and market factors, the tax is estimated to generate between $35 million and $54 million annually.
Revenue collected through the tax would be dedicated
to health purposes with 40% to the San Francisco
Unified School District for student nutrition services,
25% to the Department of Public Health (DPH) and to
the Public Utilities Commission for health programs
and for public drinking water stations, 25% to the
Recreation and Park Department for recreation programs and 10% to DPH for community grant programs
in health-related areas. Up to two percent of revenue
may be used for administration and evaluation by the
Treasurer/Tax Collector and other City departments.
This measure requires 66⅔% affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP95
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E
95
The ordinance specifies that these tax revenues may
not be used to replace funds already budgeted by the
City for the purposes of the ordinance. The Controller’s
Office estimates that this baseline expenditure amount
is currently approximately $25.2 million—with approximately $20.7 million in Recreation and Park programs
and $4.5 million in DPH programs. Like other baseline
programs, the City would be required to continue
these programs going forward and grow them at the
same rate as the City’s discretionary revenue grows.
The ordinance would place the tax on the initial distribution of each sugar-sweetened beverage in the City
and details exemptions of various types such as for
infant formula, medical products, and other specialized products.
This statement does not address the impact of the
proposed ordinance on the private economy.
How “E” Got on the Ballot
On July 22, 2014, the Board of Supervisors voted 6 to
4 to place Proposition E on the ballot. The Supervisors
voted as follows:
Yes: Campos, Chiu, Cohen, Farrell, Mar, Wiener.
No: Breed, Kim, Tang, Yee.
Excused: Avalos.
This measure requires 66⅔% affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
96
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E
38-EN-N14-CP96
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E
Prop E will provide up to $54 million for physical education and nutrition programs in San Francisco public
schools, active recreation programs, food access, oral
health programs, water fountains and water bottle filling stations citywide.
Prop E creates a small two-penny per ounce tax, paid
by the distributors of soda and sugary beverages—the
largest source of added sugar and calories in the
American diet. Just one sugary beverage a day
increases your risk for developing Type II diabetes by
26%. More children suffer from dental decay than any
other chronic disease.
Cigarette taxes significantly reduced smoking; a soda
tax will reduce consumption of sodas and other sugary beverages that are driving the diabetes epidemic.
If we do nothing to address this emerging health crisis, 1 in 3 children today will develop Type II diabetes
in their lifetime; for children of color the risk is 1 in 2.
Our bodies cannot effectively process sugar in liquid
form, resulting in liver and pancreas damage.
San Francisco’s Economic Analyst reports San
Franciscans spend $61 million on health care costs
directly related to consumption of soda and sugary
beverages.
Prop E is a result of advocates from low-income and
communities of color, asking policy leaders to intervene to help decrease consumption of soda and sugary beverages. Their neighborhoods are aggressively
marketed to, and many times, a bottle of soda is
cheaper than a bottle of water at a corner store.
Prop E will reduce soda consumption. Mexico instituted a soda tax this year and already consumption
dropped 5-7%. San Francisco’s City Economist estimates consumption could drop as much as 31%, and
provide up to $54 million in funds for health, nutrition
and active recreation programs.
Yes on Proposition E.
American Heart Association
California Medical Association
California Dental Association
San Francisco Medical Society
Choosehealthsf.com
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E
Proposition E contains two ingredients that are
unhealthy for San Francisco:
1) Higher taxes making The City even less affordable
2) More government attempts to run our lives
Proponents cite Mexico’s soda tax as proof that such
taxes effectively reduce obesity, but that tax is too
new to prove anything besides beverage sales being
down. Where is the proof that obesity rates also
dropped? Obesity rates in the US have risen in recent
years despite consumption of full-calorie sodas declining.
But let’s assume drinking sodas does contribute to
obesity. Targeting people who buy them with tax hikes
is still a poor method of addressing the issue.
High cigarette taxes have resulted in smuggling, tax
evasion, and violence, and jacking up soda taxes will
likewise have adverse consequences that legislators
cannot anticipate.
Tax hike proponents claim Proposition E is fair
because people who use more health care as a result
of drinking unhealthy sodas will pay via the tax.
Actually it would unfairly burden everyone who enjoys
sweet drinks, including many with generally healthy
lifestyles.
A better way to fight obesity is eliminating agricultural
subsidies that incentivize the production of cheap high
fructose corn syrup.
Bottom line: Social engineering efforts by government
won’t fix our waistlines. Only making wise choices
about our own diets and lifestyles will do that.
Vote NO on E.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
www.LPSF.org
And it isn’t just sodas that Proposition E would tax.
Many juices, ice teas, sport drinks, etc., will bear
higher taxes too.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP97
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition E
97
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition E
A soda tax is a simplistic and ineffective solution to a
very real and complex problem. Proponents claim
that a soda tax will result in lower calorie consumption and weight loss, but obesity is a complicated disorder which involves many components besides the
intake of sugary drinks. Calories in soda are no more
or less fattening than calories in other food. Studies
show that taxing sodas will not help reduce obesity in
the long run because consumers are able to buy alternative sugary drinks or high calories snacks in lieu of
soft drinks. In fact, in one particular study, subjects
substituted 8 calories of milk for 6 calories of sugar
sweetened beverage.
This is a “sin tax”. Politicians like these taxes because
at least in the short run they lead to an increase in revenues which increase the power of the politicians who
can dispense them. Longer term, however, this tax
will lead to even greater increases in expenditures (in
this case for recreation, health, and nutrition) that cannot be supported by the tax imposed.
Besides being ineffective in curbing weight, a soda tax
has other unintended consequences. It is regressive
tax—it taxes a larger proportion of income from
poorer people and aims at pleasures they are more
likely to partake in. (Note that the supervisors are not
taxing frappuccinos, which are at least as unhealthy as
sodas). Moreover, a soda tax will hurt small neighborhood stores that rely on soft drinks for much of their
revenue.
Libertarian Party of SF
It’s your body—if you want to eat or drink something
unhealthy, shouldn’t it be up to you?
The City Council of Richmond placed a soda tax on the
ballot and 2/3 of the voters rejected it. This proposal
deserves the same fate. Vote NO on Prop E.
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition E
PROP E PROVIDES UP TO $54 MILLION IN
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR EXPANDED NUTRITION,
ACTIVE RECREATION
Big Soda disputes medical research and uses the
same augments Big Tobacco used against cigarette
taxes. But cigarette taxes work, and save lives.
Prop E funds, by law, cannot be used for any other
purpose, or as replacement funds. Community oversight and audits ensure funds are spent as required.
Who do you trust: doctors and researchers, or Big
Soda?
Increased consumption of soda and sugary beverages,
and larger servings, are fueling the Type II diabetes
epidemic. Sugary drinks are absorbed differently than
solid food. Doctors and researchers— not the local
Libertarian party—know the evidence.
Sugary drinks in cans and bottles and fountain drinks,
are taxed. Customized beverages made on premises
are excluded; tracking varying ingredient amounts for
every drink would be burdensome. Prop E was
designed to include sugary beverages while minimizing impact on local businesses.
Prop E promotes health and cuts soda consumption
up to 31%. It will reduce sales of soda and sugary beverages, while providing more PE, better school nutrition, increased access to healthy foods and active recreation.
Project Open Hand
Pastor Arelious Walker, True Hope Baptist Church*
San Francisco Medical Society
Mission Economic Development Agency
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Not all proposed soda taxes are alike. In other places,
they weren’t designed to reduce consumption.
In 2009 President Obama proposed a national soda
tax to help pay for health care; beverage lobbyists
made sure it never saw the light of day.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
98
Paid Arguments – Proposition E
38-EN-N14-CP98
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 648
The San Francisco Parks Alliance urges you to vote
YES on Proposition E and support healthy communities. Sugar-sweetened beverages contribute to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, especially among kids
of color. Did you know that 30 percent of teenagers
currently have pre-diabetes, and that one in three children born today are at risk of developing type II diabetes in their lifetime?
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on E, Choose Health SF.
To prevent these diseases, we need to reduce sugary
beverage consumption and help kids develop healthy
eating habits. Kids also need physical activity.
The Democratic Party in San Francisco supports progressive policies that improve public health, and that
is why we support Prop E. Soda and sugary beverages
are the largest source of sugar and calories in our
diets, and they are driving our type ii diabetes epidemic, particularly in communities of color. Smoking
and lung cancer deaths have decreased dramatically
because of cigarette taxes, and studies from the most
respected universities in the US show that soda taxes
will save lives. At the same time, Prop E will provide
funds for programs that are improving public health.
Supporting a soda tax is the right choice to improve
public health.
A tax of 2 cents per ounce of sugary beverages -- just
a quarter for a can of soda -- will help fund programs
to ensure that all of our kids have the nutritious food
and the recreation programs they need to thrive.
Out of the estimated $30 million Proposition E would
generate each year, $8 million -- or 25 percent -- would
go directly to our parks system to pay for expanded
rec center hours and physical activity programs. Lowincome neighborhoods would be prioritized for this
additional funding.
The San Francisco Parks Alliance supports Proposition
E because we know that adding a few pennies to the
cost of a soda will help people make healthier choices
about what they drink. The result will be healthier children, families and entire communities.
Vote YES on Proposition E!
www.choosehealthsf.org
San Francisco Parks Alliance
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Parks Alliance.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
As the union representing grocery store workers across
San Francisco, we are fully in support of Prop E.
We care about the health of our members and the
community. Access to healthy foods and safe places to
play isn’t equal across our City. Prop E is one tool to
help even things out, with funds for healthier school
lunches, more PE, and recreation programs.
Consumers will have incentives to choose healthier
beverages, and our shelves will always be stocked
with many options— the same choices they have
today. We are proud to be a part of an effort to
improve our community’s health.
Grocery store workers say YES on E.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Hospital Council of Northern and Central
California, 2. California Dental Association, 3. California
Nurses Association PAC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
San Francisco Democratic Party
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: SF Democratic Party.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
As pediatricians, our job is to promote and protect the
health of children. We see more and more children and
teens who are overweight and on their way to becoming Type II diabetics due to drinking soda regularly.
Most people know that sugary soda isn’t good for you,
but many don’t know just how bad it is. Our bodies
don’t process sugary beverages the same way they do
sugary foods. Regular consumption of soda and
sugary beverages causes damage to our livers and
leads to insulin resistance, increasing the risk for Type
II diabetes.
Too many kids are becoming regular soda drinkers,
and teens often don’t understand the serious health
impacts. Prop E will help reverse this trend.
Health researchers and doctors at the American
Academy of Pediatrics endorse Prop E.
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: YES on E, Choose Health SF.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Hospital Council of Northern and Central
California, 2. California Dental Association, 3. California
Nurses Association PAC.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP99
Paid Arguments – Proposition E
99
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
We work every day in our communities to increase
access to healthier food. We know all too well that
low-income households are surrounded by unhealthy
food choices and struggle to afford more nutritious
options.
Soda and sugary beverages are harming our parishioners and our community.
Ending hunger is about more than making sure
people have enough calories, it about making sure
they have access to nutritious food.
Prop E is expected to decrease consumption of sugary
beverages up to 31 percent and generate revenue up
to $54 million a year, to provide healthy food to lowincome San Franciscans, fund water fountains and
water filling stations, and fund local improvements in
school nutrition, nutritional education and recreational
opportunities.
Vote YES on E.
Ryan Thayer, Co-coordinator
Tenderloin Healthy Corner Store Coalition
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: YES on E, Choose Health SF.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Hospital Council of Northern and Central
California, 2. California Dental Association, 3. California
Nurses Association PAC.
As faith leaders, when we see something harming our
communities, we are obligated to speak up and take
action. Our communities aren’t just plagued by
poverty, lack of opportunity, and guns—they are
plagued by the aggressive marketing tactics of soda
companies who dump their products into our neighborhoods, making them cheap and available on every
corner.
Studies show that regular consumption of sugary soda
and beverages is very harmful- more harmful than
eating sugary foods.
We are concerned about our families and friends who
are suffering from type II diabetes and heart disease.
We need both education AND incentives for healthier
choices to make a difference. Vote YES on E.
Providence Baptist Church
Arelius Walker, Pastor
True Hope Baptist Church
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: YES on E, Choose Health SF.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Hospital Council of Northern + Central Calif.,
2. Calif. Dental Association, 3. Calif. Nurses Association PAC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
Latinos have the highest obesity rate in San Francisco
and this soda tax would go a long way to help combat
that. Further, as an economic justice organization that
helps Latinos reduce debt, increase savings, increase
income and build credit, we recognize that this tax
could potentially cost our families a few cents more.
However, the savings in reduced medical costs and
increased life expectancy greatly outweigh that cost.
Further, this measure would create a welcome source
of funds to help combat obesity in low-income communities like the Mission.
The San Francisco Parent Teacher Association supports
Prop E because the health of our children is of the
utmost importance.
Mission Economic Development Agency
Mission Neighborhood Health Center
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: YES on E, Choose Health SF.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Hospital Council of Northern & Central Calif.,
2. Calif. Dental Assoc., 3. Calif. Nurses Association PAC.
Funds from Prop E will expand physical education and
nutritious foods at our public schools, as well as
provide much needed funds for after-school programs.
We recognize that soda and sugary beverages are
empty calories, and we are concerned about the disproportionate impact they are having in the Type II diabetes epidemic.
Prop E is sensible public health policy that is backed
by years of research. We urge you to vote YES.
San Francisco PTA
San Francisco Parent Political Action Committee
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: YES on E, Choose Health SF.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Hospital Council of Northern + Central Calif.,
2. California Dental Assoc., 3. California Nurses Association
PAC.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition E
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
100
Paid Arguments – Proposition E
38-EN-N14-CP100
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
VOTE NO ON E BECAUSE IT WILL DRIVE UP GROCERY
PRICES AND MAKE SAN FRANCISCO AN EVEN MORE
EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.
Prop E Covers More Than Just Soda
This is not just a soda tax; it’s a tax on juice drinks, ice
teas, powdered drinks, fruit juices, sports drinks, and
more. It’s a tax that could force grocers to spread
added costs across all grocery items—not just beverages.
This law would:
increase the price of some beverages by up to 75%;
raise the price of a soda by 32¢ and a 12-pack by
almost $3.00;
interfere with our ability to make responsible decisions for our own families;
create a new tax that hurts most those who can least
afford it;
add another tax to San Francisco’s long list of sales,
property, school district, and city taxes.
The Board of Supervisors spent a lot of time and
resources to place this tax on the ballot—some would
argue too much. This tax is a distraction from the
issues that really matter—issues like public safety,
homelessness, education, housing, and the city’s
general lack of affordability.
Proponents of the so-called “soda tax” want you to
think it only covers soda and you won’t have to pay it
you don’t drink soda. Nothing could be further from
the truth. This tax covers hundreds of beverages,
including many you would not necessarily think are
unhealthy. This tax will increase the cost of groceries
for all of us! We can’t afford that right now in San
Francisco.
Even proponents of the “soda tax” concede that it is
regressive; meaning the tax will disproportionately hurt
low-income families. Households that now, more than
ever, rely upon shrinking incomes to feed their families,
pay their bills and make their rent payments each
month will bear a disproportionate burden of this tax.
We support generating revenue equitably, and oppose
unfair taxes that further compromise the bottom line
for the most vulnerable in our city and make it harder
for low and fixed income residents to live day-to-day.
A no vote on Prop E will send a message to City Hall
that we need to focus on more important issues.
Calvin Louie, President of Chinese American
Democratic Club
Some claim a tax on beverages will provide additional
new funds for nutrition and recreational programs, but
Prop. E may not provide any new benefits.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
Remember how the lottery was supposed to benefit
education? Don’t let history repeat itself with Prop. E.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
The cost of living in San Francisco is high enough.
Instead of pushing for taxes on the ballot that target
those who can least afford it, city officials should be
working to make San Francisco a less expensive place
to raise a family.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Say Yes to Local Business, Vote NO on Prop E
No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition for an
Affordable City
Small business owners from all neighborhoods across
the City oppose Prop E – the unfair beverage tax. City
Government should be focusing on issues more
important to residents. The biggest concern we face
right now is the widening affordability gap and
increasing cost of living. This tax will drive up the cost
of living for all of us.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The tax sets a dangerous precedent and creates a slippery slope to justify future taxes on other groceries
that could be viewed as unhealthy. Where will it stop?
Enough is enough: Vote NO on E to send a message
that we’re tired of paying for the wrong priorities.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
The programming this ballot measure is supposed to
fund may be worthy, but funding of these programs is
dependent upon the exact behavior that the tax
attempts to curb. Please join with your local merchants and vote NO on Prop E.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP101
Paid Arguments – Proposition E
101
Henry Karnilowicz, President of the San Francisco
Council of District Merchants
ness community and not do much to make people
healthy. I urge you to vote NO on Proposition E.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The tax is structured in a way that added costs would
be passed down to food and beverage retailers –
placing an incredible burden on restaurants, cafes, pizzerias, corner stores and other local businesses. Small
businesses will have no choice but to pass along the
increased cost to their consumers, and in turn, raise
prices on everybody. Things are already expensive in
San Francisco.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Prop E is the Wrong Priority
San Francisco is known for innovation and new ideas
and I am proud to have started my business here and
be part of the community.
This tax is an overly simple solution to a very complex
problem. Unfortunately, small business owners and
residents are the ones who get stuck in the crosshairs
and are going to have to pay at the end of the day.
Prop E will have limited to no effect on curbing diabetes or other diseases – you can’t tax your way to a
healthy community.
The cost of living in San Francisco is going through
the roof and new food and beverage taxes should not
be on the table right now. Prop E doesn’t address the
major issues facing our City. We have a growing
affordability gap, challenges with public transportation, keeping our streets and parks clean, and homelessness. Prop E is the wrong priority for San
Francisco. We need innovative ideas to combat these
problems and we cannot afford a new tax that will
hurt those who can least afford it.
If we start taxing beverages, what could be next?
Although well intentioned, this poorly designed tax
will increase the cost of your grocery bill, whether or
not you drink soda, and will make it harder to live and
work here.
Vote No on Proposition E
Taylor Peck, Co-owner of Taylor’s Tonics and the Fizzary
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Prop E is Bad for Local Merchants
While I agree with the health objectives of the beverage tax proposal to help prevent diabetes and obesity,
this tax will ultimately hurt San Francisco’s small busi-
Let’s support our small business community and
oppose this ineffective tax that will negatively impact
their viability. It’s already difficult for many small businesses to compete with big chains. That is why I urge
you to vote NO on Proposition E.
Amy Morris, President of Mission Merchants
Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
We already pay high taxes – Vote NO on Prop E
In San Francisco we pay some of the highest taxes in
the nation. I don’t mind supporting quality city services. I believe in making sure we have the resources to
provide a quality public education, efficient public
transportation, and health care to those that can’t
afford it. I don’t mind paying taxes that benefit our
community, but Prop E only hurts our community. It is
the wrong priority for our City.
I am opposed to Prop E because it is an unfair tax, and
won’t achieve its stated goals.
How could anybody support increasing the cost of
groceries at a time when the price of everything is
going through the roof and so many families can’t
afford to live here anymore?
Please join with thousands of San Franciscans from
across the City opposed to Prop E and vote NO!
Michael Meadows
Owner, La Movida Wine Bar & Community Kitchen
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
102
Paid Arguments – Proposition E
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Homeowners Against Prop E - An Unnecessary
Distraction
Prop E only distracts San Francisco from the real
issues we should be working to solve. Day by day, the
affordability gap widens, creating a difficult environment for working class families to survive in. We
should be focused on improving the quality of life for
all San Franciscans and not increasing taxes on groceries.
When it comes to food and beverage choices and the
choices we make for our families, we don’t need City
Hall telling us what to do. It should be up to parents to
make responsible choices for their children. A new
beverage tax is not a substitute for parental responsibility.
The beverage tax will impact everyone’s pocketbook,
regardless of whether you drink soda or not. In this
time of economic boom for some, we can’t forget that
families are struggling to stay in this City. We
shouldn’t contribute to making it worse by passing
Prop E.
Join us and vote no on Proposition E.
Homeowners Against Unfair Beverage Taxes
Keith Roy
Yukiko Meadows
Jo Ann Shain
Henry Shain
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Vote No on Prop E: Unfair Tax for Tenants
Prop E will hurt working families and tenants by
increasing grocery prices for everyone. This tax
doesn’t consider that there are food deserts in some
neighborhoods where low-income families and
tenants don’t have access to healthy food options.
Prop E punishes the people that supporters claim it
will help. We need to address the growing affordability
gap and lack of affordable housing, not increase
grocery prices.
We appreciate the intention to curb obesity, but Prop E
is misguided, condescending and deeply flawed. San
38-EN-N14-CP102
Francisco is lacking leadership and a commitment to
common sense policy in the affordability crisis. We do
not want a tax that will hurt our neighbors, our local
small businesses, and us!
Tenants Against Unfair Beverage Taxes
Spencer Young
Mathew Herrick
Elisa Benedicto
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
San Francisco is Already Too Expensive – Vote No on E
Everyday, San Francisco loses low-income and minority families who can no longer afford to live here. That
is why we want you to vote NO on Prop E.
While Prop E is being championed as an attack on the
soda industry, the fact is the tax is an attack on lowincome families. This tax covers hundreds of beverages including juice drinks, sports drinks and teas, but
Prop E makes exemptions for certain beverages that
have just as much sugar. It doesn’t make any sense
that some sugar-sweetened beverages are taxed while
others are left untaxed.
The issue of health is much more complex than a beverage tax. Good health is a product of a balanced diet
and an active lifestyle. Taking money out of the
pockets of working families won’t make anybody any
healthier. Eating healthy requires access to healthy
foods. This tax does nothing to address that need.
While we applaud the cause of community health,
we’ve joined together to demand more equitable solutions that don’t hurt San Francisco businesses and
low-income families.
Don’t make everyday San Franciscans pay for this
political statement. Vote no on Prop E.
Filipino Americans Against Prop E
Eugene Aquiler
Iris Elham
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Paid Arguments – Proposition E
38-EN-N14-CP103
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Prop E is Wrong for Seniors & Wrong for San Francisco
We urge you to vote NO on Proposition E because
seniors need your support against an unfair beverage
tax. Seniors who live on a fixed income do not have
the financial resources to pay more for groceries.
Affordability is central to our senior community and
right now housing and food costs are increasing out
of control. Prop E makes it worse. We believe that the
beverage tax is regressive and one that will seriously
impact the viability of the senior residents of this City.
We are long time contributing members of San
Francisco – we are educators, veterans, immigrants
and we need your support so that we are not pushed
out of the City.
We believe there are other ways to encourage positive
health outcomes, but a tax that disproportionately
affects low-income residents and seniors is not the
solution. Vote NO on Proposition E and protect the
future of seniors in San Francisco.
Seniors Against the Beverage Tax
Gerarda Darming
Luz De Guzman
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Working Families Oppose Prop E
Prop E is bad for working families. The San Francisco
City Controller’s report on this proposition estimated
that hundreds of jobs could be lost in San Francisco if
Prop E passes. The jobs that will disappear are held by
hard working San Franciscans in production, distribution, delivery and retail. These jobs are good middle
class jobs that provide a living wage, medical and
retirement benefits. We can’t afford the loss of good
jobs for hard working people.
We believe this is a regressive tax that will disproportionately affect middle-income families. Check the
facts, Prop E will harm those that can least afford it
and cost jobs.
Join the Teamsters and other members of organized
labor and vote NO on E!
Michael Vincent, Member of Teamsters Joint Council 7*
103
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Prop E Hurts
San Francisco should provide new health and recreation programs for our most vulnerable residents to
help prevent obesity and diabetes, but those same
residents shouldn’t be on the hook for the cost of
those programs. During a time of ever-rising costs, the
last thing we need is an increase in the price of our
groceries. Intentions may be good, but the unintended
consequences of the beverage tax are going to cost
low-income families at a time when the City can least
afford it.
Last year, the San Francisco Human Services Agency
released a report that shows San Francisco’s income
inequality gap is greater than that of New York,
Washington D.C. and Los Angeles. The wealthy are
making nearly twenty-times more than low-income
earners in the city. The 2010 census showed over
70,000 residents are struggling to live on less than
$25,000 per year, while 40,000 residents are earning
more than $200,000 per year. That’s an income gap
that mirrors Rwanda. With an $8.9 billion city budget,
certainly there are more equitable ways we can generate funds for these programs.
Vote NO on Prop E and save families from a burdensome tax.
Reverend Arnold Townsend
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Regressive Taxes don’t belong in a Progressive City
An unfair flat tax on beverages doesn’t make us
healthier. It just takes money out of the pockets of the
poorest in our community. Prop E is an unfair tax that
will increase the cost of hundreds of beverages and it
will be passed along to consumers in the form of
increased food and beverages prices. We need to
stand together and defeat Prop E.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
104
Paid Arguments – Proposition E
Prop E places a new burden on people who have been
marginalized in San Francisco, the same people proponents of this measure say they are trying to help.
This will make it more difficult for LGBT youth from
around the country to call San Francisco home as the
costs of living increase.
This measure exempts products that the most fortunate can afford like 100% fruit juice, but the tax could
increase the price of some beverages, like lower-cost
sports and juice drinks, by as much as 75%. That is
just unfair, plain and simple.
We need services that help people, not condescending
and burdensome taxes. It’s time we go back to the
drawing board and come up with real solutions for
community health. You won’t make anyone healthier
by making him or her poorer.
Prop E is a regressive tax. Vote NO!
Kevin Bard, Former Board Member of the Harvey Milk
LGBT Democratic Club*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Prop E Doesn’t Consider Impacts on Our Local
Businesses – Vote NO!
Proposition E does nothing but place a new burden on
Latino owned small and family operated businesses.
Prop E increases costs associated with selling sugarsweetened beverages. This would hurt the ability for
corner markets to thrive in an already competitive
environment, especially against large chain stores
that, unlike ours, will be able to absorb this cost
increase. Vote NO on E!
38-EN-N14-CP104
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: No on E: Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes, Coalition
for an Affordable City.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
American Beverage Association California PAC.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
The soda tax would do nothing to financially discourage the consumption of sugary beverages. The tax
wouldn’t be advertised on store shelves nor itemized
on receipts, so most shoppers wouldn’t even know
about the tax discreetly figured into the price of their
drinks. Well-informed consumers would simply buy
their soda outside of San Francisco, thereby decreasing sales-tax revenue for the city.
Furthermore, this type of nanny-state regulation is not
the job of our Board of Supervisors. Instead of tackling
real problems, some supervisors choose to micromanage our lives. What’s next? Will they send a city
employee into our homes to ensure that we’re eating
our vegetables?
Vote no on Proposition E.
San Francisco Republican Party
Harmeet Dhillon, Chair
Charles Cagnon, Mathew Del Carlo, John Dennis,
Howard Epstein, Alisa Farenzena, Terence Faulkner,
Barry Graynor, Christine Hughes, Joan Leone, Rodney
Leong, David Salaverry, Dana Walsh, Rich Worner,
Gabriella Bartonico, Christopher L. Bowman, Daniel
Higa, Stephanie Jeong
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Republican Party.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Charles M. Munger, 2. Christine Hughes,
3. Dhillon Smith.
Only six members of the Board of Supervisors voted
to place this on the ballot in a split decision. The city
is divided on this issue. I urge you to stand with your
local corner and grocery store owners by voting NO
on E!
Support an affordable San Francisco and protect San
Francisco’s vibrant small business community by
voting NO on E!
San Francisco Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
106
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F
F
38-EN-N14-CP106
Pier 70
Shall the City increase the height limit for new buildings on the 28-acre
development site in the Pier 70 area from 40 feet to 90 feet; and shall it be
City policy to encourage the City to proceed with public approval
processes, including environmental review, for this mixed-use project, and
encourage parks, housing, cultural space, and job creation for this site?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: The City, through its Port
Commission (Port) owns a 28-acre area of land
roughly bounded by 20th Street, Michigan Street,
22nd Street, and the Bay. This is part of a 69-acre
waterfront property known as the Pier 70 area,
bounded by Mariposa Street to the north, Illinois
Street to the west, 22nd Street to the south, and the
Bay.
YES
NO
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The height limit
increase would not become effective until the Port,
after compliance with CEQA, approves the development plan.
Proposition F would make it City policy to encourage
the following major features in developing the site:
• nine acres of waterfront parks and recreation
areas that would provide public access to the
Bay;
Historically, the Pier 70 area was an industrial site,
used primarily as a shipyard, and does not now allow
public access to the Bay. Pier 70 includes historic
buildings and the National Register of Historic Places
lists Pier 70 as the Union Iron Works Historic District.
• approximately 1,000 to 2,000 new residential
units; most of these units would be rental units,
and 30% would be below market rate and affordable for middle- and low-income households;
After a three-year community planning process, the
Port created a master plan to reuse Pier 70 and designated the 28-acre portion for development. The majority of this site is vacant and a portion is used for artists’ studios and storage.
• space for arts and cultural activities, nonprofits,
small-scale manufacturing, retail, and neighborhood services;
In 2011, after a competitive solicitation, the Port
selected a development partner for the site. The developer proposes a mixed-use project with residential,
office, retail, arts spaces, and public open space and
recreation areas.
• between 1 million to 2 million square feet of new
commercial and office space;
The current building height limit on the site is 40 feet.
The historic buildings on the site, however, are more
than 40 feet tall and one is 90 feet tall.
The Proposal: Proposition F is an ordinance that would
increase the height limit for buildings on the 28-acre
development site in the Pier 70 area from 40 feet to 90
feet.
Proposition F would provide that all aspects of development other than the height limit increase will continue to be subject to public approval processes,
including environmental review under the California
• restoration and re-use of historic structures;
• preservation of the artist community currently
located in the Pier 70 area;
• parking and transportation improvements; and
• a significant number of permanent jobs and revenue to support public housing facilities.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to:
• increase the height limit for new buildings on the
28-acre development site in the Pier 70 area from
40 feet to 90 feet;
• encourage the City to proceed with public
approval processes, including environmental
review, for this mixed-use project; and
• make it City policy to encourage parks, housing,
cultural space, and job creation for this site.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP107
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F
107
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
to increase the height limit or adopt this City policy.
Controller’s Statement on “F”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition F:
Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the
voters, in my opinion, it would not, in and of itself,
affect the cost of government.
The ordinance would authorize building heights up to
90 feet on a portion of the Port of San Francisco’s Pier
70 property as part of a residential, office, retail, arts
and public space development that is currently being
planned. The financial agreements and other aspects
of the development project are subject to existing public approval processes and will not be materially
affected by the ordinance.
How “F” Got on the Ballot
On July 16, 2014, the Department of Elections certified
that the initiative petition calling for Proposition F to
be placed on the ballot had a sufficient number of
valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
9,702 signatures were required to place an initiative
ordinance on the ballot. This number is equal to 5% of
the total number of people who voted for Mayor in
2011. A random check of the signatures submitted by
the proponents of the initiative petition prior to the
July 7, 2014, submission deadline showed that the
total number of valid signatures was greater than the
number required.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
108
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F
38-EN-N14-CP108
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition F
Prop F is the result of years of community participation and neighborhood input to revitalize vacant land
and deteriorating buildings currently behind fences
that block waterfront access.
Prop F creates affordable housing, local jobs and new
waterfront parks. It rehabilitates historic buildings,
funds transit, and provides space for artists and local
manufacturing. To make these public benefits possible,
it changes the height limit from 40 to 90 feet – the
same height as the site’s tallest existing structure.
A broad coalition including Dogpatch Neighborhood
Association, Potrero Boosters Neighborhood
Association, Mayor Ed Lee and former Mayor Art
Agnos support Prop F.
Public Benefits:
Affordable Housing: Creates up to 600 affordable
homes – more than double required by city law. A
majority of the units will be rentals.
Waterfront Parks: Creates public Bay access with all
buildings at least 100 feet from the shoreline, and nine
acres of parks, playgrounds and recreation.
Historic Preservation: Rehabilitates existing historic
buildings.
Studios for Artists: Provides new artist studios at
affordable rates.
Local Manufacturing Space: Provides space for local
manufacturing, retail and services.
Jobs: New commercial space will generate up to
10,000 permanent new jobs.
Transit: Generates more than $20 million to fund local
transit improvements.
For more information please visit pier70sf.com
Dogpatch Neighborhood Association
Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association
Potrero Hill Democratic Club
San Francisco Democratic Party
San Francisco Labor Council
San Francisco Parks Alliance
Affordable Housing Alliance
San Francisco Building & Construction Trades
San Francisco Heritage
Mayor Ed Lee
Former Mayor Art Agnos
State Senator Mark Leno
State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Judge Quentin Kopp (ret)
Assessor-Recorder Carmen Chu*
President, Board of Supervisors David Chiu
Former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor London Breed
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Jane Kim
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor Katy Tang
Supervisor Scott Wiener
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition F
PROPOSITION “F” MEANS FURTHER
OVERDEVELOPMENT OF SAN FRANCISCO AND ITS
DRAMATIC PORT:
Admittedly, this Pier 70 development is not as bad as
the recently voter-defeated 8 Washington project. It
does, however, raise the building height limit from 40
to 90 feet and will greatly increase the population
around Pier 70.
The real policy question connected with Proposition F
is whether further San Francisco population growth
should be encouraged.
As already noted, San Francisco has more residents
per square mile than any of the State of California’s
other counties.
What will be the impacts of this new and larger population on traffic, auto accidents, parking, Muni’s
already troubled streetcars and buses, BART, and the
demand for City services??? Don’t expect these problems to go away.
The refusal of the Board of the Coalition for San
Francisco Neighborhoods to support Proposition “F” is
food for consideration and caution. Be very careful on
this vote. Think ahead.
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
United States President’s Federal Executive Awards
Committeeman (1988)*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Do we want over 1,000,000 San Franciscan’s stuffed
into our City’s very limited territorial area within the
next few years?
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP109
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition F
109
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition F
DOES ALREADY OVERCROWDED SAN FRANCISCO
REALLY WANT OVER ONE MILLION RESIDENTS ON
LESS THAN 49 SQUARE MILES OF TERRITORY???
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
1999-2005 Member of State of California’s Certified
Farmers Market Advisory Board*
There are strong real estate developer pressures to
run up the population of the City and County of San
Francisco beyond its current estimated population of
about 850,000 to over 1,000,000 people before 2020.
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Unfortunately, San Francisco has less than 49 square
miles, with large areas occupied by parks, schools,
playgrounds, and other developments.
The City already has major traffic problems, lots of
auto accidents, a poorly planned Muni bus and streetcar system, and many more serious urban problems.
Passing Proposition “F” will just increase San
Francisco’s growing overpopulation difficulties.
The Coalition for San Francisco Neiborhoods, a large
federation of some 48 civic organizations and
improvement clubs, has wisely voted “no endorsement” on Proposition “F”.
San Francisco already has more people per square
mile than any other of California’s 58 counties.
Vote “NO!” on Proposition “F”.
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition F
The Sierra Club supports Prop. F because it creates
open space and gives the public access to the Bay
along our waterfront. Prop. F creates nine acres of
new parks, playgrounds and recreation while providing much needed affordable housing and local jobs.
It rehabilitates historic buildings, funds transit, and
provides space for artists and local manufacturing.
That’s why neighbors are joining the Sierra Club in
supporting Prop F, including the Dogpatch
Neighborhood Association and Potrero Boosters
Neighborhood Association, plus a citywide coalition
including Mayor Ed Lee and Former Mayor Art Agnos.
This is development done right – with extensive input
from the community and respectful ongoing conversations and dialog with the neighbors.
Open Space and Bay Access: Prop. F creates open
space along our waterfront and gives the public Bay
access buildings at least 100 feet from the shoreline,
and creates nine acres of new parks, playgrounds and
recreation.
Affordable Housing: Prop. F creates up to 600 affordable homes – almost triple the amount required by
city law. Majority of the units will be rentals.
Transit: Prop. F generates more than $20 million in
transit impact fees to fund local transit improvements.
Sierra Club
Dogpatch Neighborhood Association
Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association
Potrero Hill Democratic Club
San Francisco Democratic Party
San Francisco Parks Alliance
Affordable Housing Alliance
San Francisco Labor Council
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council
Jobs: Creates 11,000 construction jobs and will generate up to 10,000 permanent jobs.
Historic Preservation: Prop. F rehabilitates three historic buildings.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
110
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
GIVE PIER 70 A NEEDED BOOST --THE DOGPATCH
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND POTRERO
BOOSTERS SAY “YES” ON F!
The Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association and
Dogpatch Neighborhood Association have long served
our communities on land use issues.
Our records are clear. We support projects that
enhance our neighborhoods --and oppose projects
that diminish them.
And because of our location, our members have long
been engaged in development issues along the
Central Waterfront.
That’s why it’s noteworthy that, upon careful study and
debate, our organizations support Prop F because the
Union Ironworks/Pier 70 project:
• Increases height only to the tallest point of the
existing buildings on-site.
• Builds needed housing at all affordability levels.
• Opens additional shoreline for public access and
recreation.
• Commits to local hire of San Franciscans for 30%
of construction jobs.
• Preserves historic buildings and structures.
• Protects against sea level rise with a $200 million
infrastructure investment.
• Commits to much needed transit improvements.
• Continues to adhere to California environmental
and SF Planning review.
We know a thoughtful project for our neighborhoods
and the City when we see one.
Please join us and vote YES on PROP F!
Dogpatch Neighborhood Association
Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Dogpatch Neighborhood Association and Potrero
Boosters Neighborhood Association.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
The Neighbors Say Yes!
We are residents of the San Francisco neighborhoods
closest to Pier 70 and we urge you to support
Proposition F.
Today the area is a mix of vacant land and deteriorating buildings, locked behind chain linked fences that
block access to the public. As it currently stands, we
38-EN-N14-CP110
do not have access to our neighborhood’s public
waterfront!
But that can change. For the past several years, our
neighborhoods have participated in an extensive community planning process that will support revitalization of the site with waterfront parks, housing affordable to low- and middle-income households, preservation and rehabilitation of historic buildings, space for
local artists and the creation of new jobs.
Proposition F outlines precedent-setting requirements
for affordable housing, local hire, waterfront parks and
other public benefits. It changes the height limit to the
same height as the site’s tallest existing historic structure.
Proposition F will help our historic neighborhood grow
and evolve while retaining its special character.
Please join us in voting YES on F -- sometimes neighbors really do know best!
Scott Allan
Holly Allen
Mc Allen
Vanessa R. Aquino
Stacey Bartlett
Dana Bolstad
Brett Camarda
Janet Carpinelli
Jennifer Chatfield
John B. deCastro
Bernadette Doerr
J.R. Eppler
Susan Eslick
Adam Ferrall-Nunge
Elizabeth Ferrall-Nunge
Keith Goldstein
Lesley Grossblatt
Bruce Huie
Mara Iaconi
Jonathon Kass
Patricia Kline
Scott Kline
William J. Lapczynski
Christine Lindinger
Monisha Mustapha
Jacob Millan
Ron Miguel
Brandon Raslin
Michelle Regenbogen
Jeremy Regenbogen
Brandon Schantz
Oliver Sjahsam
Ralph Wilson
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP111
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
111
Shawn Wood
Louis Yim
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Environmentalists and Park Advocates support
Proposition F
Proposition F is a crucial step to improve Pier 70, San
Francisco’s waterfront, and the Dogpatch neighborhood.
The Union Iron Works/Pier 70 project creates 9 acres of
parks and open space, and provides new public access
to the waterfront for local residents and all to enjoy.
Vote Yes on Proposition F to create new waterfront
access, build desperately-needed new parks and recreation space, and connect our neighborhoods to the
Bay.
Parks and open space provide important social and
community benefits, such as increasing recreational
opportunities and creating more livable neighborhoods. Making southeastern neighborhoods more
livable by offering recreational opportunities for at-risk
youth, low income children and families is something
we can all support.
Plus, don’t forget, green space provides substantial
environmental benefits as well!
This mixed-used project will bring $200 million in
infrastructure to incorporate intelligent transportation
systems, energy saving buildings, advance wastewater
and stormwater systems, and will raise the grade of
the site to plan for future sea level rise.
Vote YES on Proposition F - because parks, fields,
pathways and open space allow for recreation to
improve communities – it’s a proven fact!
Sierra Club
SF Beautiful
San Francisco Parks Alliance
SF Tomorrow
Walk San Francisco
Leah Pimentel, Blue Greenway Committee Chair*
Janet Carpinelli, Green Trust San Francisco Central
Waterfront*
Rebecca Evans, Chair, San Francisco Bay Chapter,
Sierra Club
John Rizzo, Political Chair, San Francisco Bay Chapter,
Sierra Club
Bruce Huie, Founder, Progress Park*
Barry Hermanson, Member, San Francisco Green Party
County Council*
The proposed project adds parks, playgrounds, and an
active waterfront use to land that is vacant, deteriorating, and has no public access. This project will also
enliven the area with improvements to historic structures, creating a home for arts and culture, small business, and light manufacturing.
San Francisco Beautiful is generally concerned with
proposals that add height and bulk to existing limits,
especially on the waterfront.
The increase in this case is consistent with the reasonable increases that the Board of Supervisors, San
Francisco Beautiful and the Dogpatch Neighborhood
Association and Potrero Boosters Neighborhood
Association have deemed appropriate to enhance the
growth, beauty, and vitality of this community.
We urge you to vote Yes on Prop F!
San Francisco Beautiful
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Beautiful.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Affordable housing and tenant advocates agree: Yes on
F is good for housing and renters!
If there is one thing we can all agree on, San Francisco
desperately needs more affordable housing. That’s
why we are united in supporting Proposition F, which
not only provides 30% affordable, on-site housing, but
sets a new precedent for what responsible development in San Francisco should look like.
Prop F will enable the production of between 1,000 to
2,000 residential units. A majority of these homes will
be rentals, and 30% will be affordable to low income
and middle income households. That means 300 to
600 affordable new homes for San Francisco and is
more than double what is legally required.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
112
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
It also sets a standard for future developments that
will help us ensure that all San Franciscans have the
home and shelter we deserve. Please vote Yes on F.
Affordable Housing Alliance
AIDS Housing Alliance/SF
Chinatown Community Development Center
Community Housing Partnership
San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
Douglas Shoemaker, President, Mercy Housing CA*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
NOONAN BUIDING ARTISTS SAY YES ON
PROPOSITION F
38-EN-N14-CP112
Rico Schwartzberg, Photographer
Jason Sussberg, Filmmaker
Taravat Talepasand
Richard Walker
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
DOGPATCH SALOON AND LOCAL BUSINESS
SUPPORT PROPOSITION F
As small businesses, restaurants and bar owners who
work, serve, toil and love this neighborhood and community we urge your YES vote on Proposition F.
Our support stems from community planning and
input ensuring the new project is consistent with the
character of the local merchant and commercial district.
For decades, Pier 70 has been home to a rich artist
community. As artists, designers and fabricators we
draw energy and inspiration from the historic shipyard
workers who also worked by hand to create and make
things that have meaning and functionality.
The new jobs, housing, and visitors will allow us to
continue to showcase our locally owned businesses
and maintain our unique lifestyle and atmosphere as a
San Francisco neighborhood.
On this historic site, thanks to the Union Works/Pier 70
project, we’ll be able to continue our traditions in film,
painting, sculpture, digital media and new media arts
in an affordable new studio space.
Dogpatch Saloon
Dogpatch Café
Ricksaw Bagworks Inc.
Dogpatch Massage and Bodywork
Marin Street Enterprises
Potrero Chiropractors and Acupuncture
SF Clayworks
Sutton Cellars
Join us in voting YES on this mixed-use project that
has legal guarantees and commitments to preserve
our communal artist space and ensure that the creative, historic uses of the site are honored.
Mark Abranson, Graphic Designer
Kimberly Austin
Pamela Axelson, Artist
Francis Berry, Artist
Robert Berry, Designer
Nancy Caten
Kim Frohsin, Artist
Rebecca Goldstein, Artist
Connie Harris, Artist
Henry Jackson, Artist
Walter Kennedy, Photographer
David Magnusson, Photographer
Marti Mckee, Artist
Daniel Phill, Artist
Keith Plymale, Artist
Theodore Rigby
Michael Rothfeld, Artist
VOTE YES on PROPOSITION F!
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Mayor Ed Lee urges you to vote Yes on F
San Francisco needs to encourage environmentally
friendly projects that promote job growth and build
housing that working families can afford. Prop F guarantees hundreds of units for the teachers, firefighters
and other middle-class San Franciscans who need
those most. Plus, this measure will generate 11,000
construction and up to 10,000 permanent jobs and
create 9 acres of new public waterfront parks, playgrounds and recreation space at no cost to taxpayers.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP113
Prop F is an example of the kind of smart planning
that will help our local economy thrive - securing local
jobs, promoting small manufacturers and local artists,
and making sure our city is a place where our middle
class can afford to live.
Please join me, along with business, labor and environmental leaders in voting yes on F.
Mayor Edwin M. Lee
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Mayor Art Agnos: Prop F is great for our city
I strongly support Proposition F because it addresses
the four big challenges facing San Francisco present
and future.
#1 Affordable Housing: Prop F mandates 30% on-site
affordable housing for low and middle residents -more than twice what is required. Plus, below marketrate studios for artists.
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
113
Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, Mission Bay and Bayview – and
great for our city.
Former Mayor Art Agnos
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
San Francisco Democratic Party endorses Proposition F
Prop F will create 11,000 construction and up to 10,000
permanent jobs and provide up to 600 housing units
for middle and working-class San Franciscans.
These new jobs will generate millions of dollars for
our city’s local economy and employ thousands of San
Franciscans. Additionally, Prop F will provide much
needed housing that is affordable for the middle-class
families who today are being pushed out by the
housing crisis.
Help secure San Francisco’s economic future. Join San
Francisco Democrats in saying YES on F for more local
jobs and vital housing for working families.
#2 Jobs: Prop F will create up to 10,000 permanent
jobs, including many low-tech, light manufacturing
“made in SF” jobs. And, 11,000 construction jobs -with at least 30% for local San Franciscans!
San Francisco Democratic Party
#3 Open Space: In this project, 9 of 28 acres will be
open space and park, including a 100 feet setback
along the entire shoreline. This is triple what exists in
Dogpatch today.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
#4 Sea Level Rise: Over $200 million in infrastructure
improvements – at developer expense -- including
raising the grade at the site between 3 and 5 feet to
respond to scientific projections for 55 inch sea level
rise in this century.
Supporting Prop F is a win-win. It provides hundreds
of desperately needed housing units for working-class
San Franciscans while creating 11,000 construction
jobs and up to 10,000 permanent jobs.
These benefits are made possible by a modest
increase in the current height limit for new buildings
from 40 feet back to the historic height limit 90 feet -the same height as an existing building on the property that will be rehabilitated for continued use.
Significantly, if this height increase is approved by the
voters, it will not take effect until a thorough environmental review is concluded and a development plan
that includes all of the public benefits described above
is reviewed and approved by the Port Commission,
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
I respectfully ask that you join me in supporting Prop F,
which is good for the immediate neighborhoods of
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Democratic Party.
San Francisco Democratic leaders urge you to vote Yes
on F!
There’s no question that affordability is at the top of
many San Franciscan’s minds. That’s why we should
come together as a community to support a measure
that will create housing that our middle-class can
afford. Further, Prop F will support the local manufacturing economy and cultivate new public parks and
recreation space at no cost to the city or its taxpayers.
This project is what smart planning looks like - middleclass housing; local jobs; and outdoor space for all
San Franciscans. Vote YES on F.
San Francisco Democratic Party
Mayor Ed Lee
Former Mayor Art Agnos
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
114
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
State Senator Mark Leno
State Assembly Member Tom Ammiano
Former State Assembly Member Fiona Ma
Treasurer Jose Cisneros
David Chiu, President, Board of Supervisors
Aaron Peskin, Former President, Board of Supervisors
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor London Breed
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Mary Jung, DCCC Chair
Zoe Dunning, DCCC Vice-Chair
Trevor McNeil, DCCC Vice-Chair
Leah Pimentel, DCCC Vice-Chair
Alix Rosenthal, DCCC Vice-Chair
Kat Anderson, DCCC Recording Secretary
Tom Hsieh, DCCC Treasurer
Matt Dorsey, DCCC Corresponding Secretary
Petra DeJesus, DCCC
Bill Fazio, DCCC
Rafael Mandelman, DCCC
Rebecca Prozan, DCCC
Wendy Aragon, President, Richmond District
Democratic Club
Brigitte Davila, President, San Francisco District 11
Democratic Club*
Joni Eisen, President, Potrero Hill Democratic Club
Eileen Hansen, Former Ethics Commissioner
Tony Kelly, Former President, Potrero Boosters
Neighborhood Association
Chinese American Democratic Club
Central City Democrats
District 8 Democratic Club
New Avenues Democratic Club
Potrero Hill Democratic Club
Richmond District Democratic Club
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
LABOR AND BUSINESS AGREE – VOTE YES ON
PROPOSITION F!
The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the San
Francisco Labor Council and the San Francisco
Building and Construction Trades Council are joining
38-EN-N14-CP114
together to support Proposition F because of our
shared priorities of good jobs, housing, parks, waterfront access and infrastructure improvements.
The 28-acre Union Iron Works/Pier 70 site was once
the center of innovation, technological advancements,
and worker knowhow for the entire world’s western
economy.
Now, after decades of decline, Proposition F represents the emergence and creation of up to 10,000 permanent jobs, a commitment to hiring San Franciscans
for construction jobs, space for local light industrial
and manufacturing, and a chance for workers to live
close to work with the creation of up to 2,000 units of
housing for all income levels.
We built this City – let’s revitalize this important site
for its next chapter in San Francisco’s vibrant history.
Let’s do it together – VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION F!
San Francisco Labor Council
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Building and Construction Trades
Council
Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth
San Francisco Police Officers Association
San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798
Carpenters Local Union No. 22 San Francisco
Laborers International Union of North America Local
Union No. 261
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
Union #6
Operating Engineers Local #3
Ironworkers Local 377
Sheet Metal Workers Local 104
UA Local 38 Plumbers and Pipefitters Union
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
RESTORE PIER 70 – YES ON F
Your YES vote on F adjusts heights on Pier 70, conforming to those of the pier’s historic uses.
The former industrial site below Potrero Hill, now
asphalt lots and deteriorated buildings behind chainlink fences, will be reborn with acres of parks, hundreds of affordable middle-class rental homes, and
restoration of historic structures from the Port’s shipbuilding past. It provides new jobs and space for
artists, non-profits, manufacturers, local retailers and
neighborhood services.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP115
Business, labor and civic groups all agree:
VOTE YES ON F TO RESTORE PIER 70!
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and our 1,500
local businesses
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Historic Preservationists and History Lovers say YES to
Proposition F
Rarely does an intact historic site present itself for
preservation and adaptive reuse. But that’s exactly
what this voter initiative does, and that’s why we’re
voting YES.
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
115
Alyssa Perez
Norma Elva Perez
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
SUPPORT QUALITY URBAN PLANNING – VOTE YES
ON F!
When guided by sound principles, growth can
enhance the special qualities of a community.
The project saves, rehabilitates and reuses incredible
historic buildings, each included in the Union Iron
Works Historic District listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic
Places is the official catalogue of America’s historic
places worthy of preservation.
Almost a decade of planning with the neighborhoods,
Port and city has gone into the Union Iron Works/Pier
70. The result is a mixed-use project that is community-oriented, environmentally sensitive, and fiscally
responsible – the right balance for our central waterfront.
Dating back to 1884, with the construction of the shipyard, the site remained significant through 1945 at the
close of World War II, when the yard was at its peak of
activity after almost a century of building schooners,
ferries, paddle boats and warships. During this entire
period, it pioneered technological developments in
shipbuilding, and the production of significant vessels.
The site is also a great example of prominent trends in
industrial architecture from the late 19th century
through World War II.
Some features:
The project will still require years of ongoing, thorough public input and review. But today, this ballot
measure is a chance for us to support and educate
San Franciscans about an important area in America
and San Francisco’s rich history.
An enthusiastic YES on PROPOSITION F.
San Francisco Heritage
Bethlehem Shipyard Museum
James R. Celedon, Former Shipyard Worker
Gladys Hansen, San Francisco City Archivist Emeritus
and founder of City Guides*
Richard B. Hansen, Director, The Museum of the City of
San Francisco, sfmuseum.org*
William J. Perez, President, Bethlehem Shipyard
Museum*
Ralph Wilson, Pier 70/neighborhood historian
Roger M. Bazeley
Angela Chavez
• Between 1,000 and 2,000 total residential units. A
majority would be rentals, and 30% would be
affordable to low- and middle-income individuals;
• Between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 square feet of
new commercial and office space;
• 9 acres of waterfront parks, playgrounds and recreation, with a 100 feet setback from the shoreline;
• Rehabilitation of historic buildings;
• Space for arts, cultural, small-scale manufacturing,
local retail and neighborhood services;
• Transportation improvements;
• Urban and architectural design guidelines that will
encourage a range of building heights between two
and nine stories (though none taller than 90 feet)
and promote high quality design of buildings and
parks;
• $200 million in infrastructure investment, including
raising the grade of the site more than three feet to
protect against sea level rise;
• The ballot measure explicitly states that the environmental review process under CEQA and planning and design go through the regular public
process.
VOTE YES to SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES – VOTE
YES on F
Ron Miguel, Former SF Planning Commission
President*
Dean L. Macris, Former SF Planning Director*
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
116
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director, SPUR*
Jasper Rubin, Associate Professor, SFSU*
Toby Levine, Retired Planning Commissioner*
Ralph Wilson, Member, Central Waterfront Advisory
Group*
Howard Wong, Member, Central Waterfront Advisory
Group*
Walk San Francisco
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
As a committed Pier 70 advocate with at least 10 years
of involvement, I urge you to vote yes on Proposition F.
I would like the public to know that residents of the
City and neighbors of Dogpatch have been working to
restore and rehabilitate Pier 70 for years. Once preservation and development of Pier 70 occurs, it will
become an amazing part of the City that all of us will
be very proud. Of particular note in the plans will be
the historic preservation of three unique buildings,
waterfront access which is so limited in this part of the
City, space for artisan businesses and creative people,
and unique waterfront housing…of which a good percentage will be affordable. And a former industrial site
will be cleaned up. I urge you to vote yes on
Proposition F to begin the process of restoration both
historically and environmentally.
Toby Levine, Retired Planning Commissioner
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Toby Levine.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Proposition F is for Progress
Proposition F represents thoughtful, progressive planning on our treasured waterfront – not the one-off spot
zoning for high priced condos that the Port of San
Francisco and connected developers are constantly
pursuing.
Unlike 8 Washington, this project has had years of
meaningful community planning and input and the
mixed-use project presented in Proposition F has
earned the support of all surrounding neighborhood
groups – showcasing that smart planning and development is achievable.
38-EN-N14-CP116
The height exemption vote from 40 to 90 feet is
logical, as the buildings will be no higher than what
currently exists on the site. In fact, until the late 1970’s
the site was zoned 90 feet.
Vote YES on Prop F and tell City Hall that citizens and
neighbors understand that smart development on the
waterfront protects and preserves our best traditions,
while embracing the best planning practices of the
21st century.
Affordable Housing Alliance
Sierra Club
Aaron Peskin, Former President Board of Supervisors
Art Agnos, Former Mayor
Rebecca Evans, Chair, San Francisco Bay Chapter,
Sierra Club
J.R. Eppler, President, Potrero Boosters Neighborhood
Association*
Joni Eisen, President, Potrero Hill Democratic Club*
Barry Hermanson, Member, San Francisco Green Party
County Council*
Tony Kelly, Former President, Potrero Boosters
Neighborhood Association
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Affordable Housing Alliance.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
PROP F IS FORWARD THINKING
Proposition F, which merits our votes, constitutes an
extension of June’s passage of Proposition B, protecting our waterfront by requiring approval of waterfront
development.
Proposition F authorizes the rehabilitation of Pier 70,
now a bedraggled conglomeration of unattractiveness.
The Proposition F project includes up to 600 affordable
homes for renting or buying, parks, artist studios, restoration of historic landmarks and the same height
limits as the tallest existing building – nothing higher!
This project represents good citizenship.
Vote YES on Prop F!
Quentin L. Kopp, Superior Court Judge (ret.)
Jeff Adachi, Public Defender
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Taxpayers Association.
The two contributors to the true source recipient committee:
Denise La Pointe, Richard Hall.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP117
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
117
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
LOCAL MANUFACTURERS SUPPORT PROPOSITION F
PROPOSITION F CREATES CONSTRUCTION JOBS FOR
SAN FRANCISCANS
We’ve made it our business to make sure things are
made right here in San Francisco.
This is a perfect match – producing up to 10,000 permanent jobs including low tech and light manufacturing so that this historic site of industry and manufacturing can reemerge after decades of decline.
Proposition F will also create ground-level, pedestrianfriendly space for local manufacturing, retail and services – something San Francisco really needs.
Vote YES to create jobs, empower manufacturers and
transform our City.
Vote YES on Proposition F
SFMade
Rickshaw Bagworks Inc.
Sutton Cellars
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Why would the San Francisco Taxpayers Association
have any interest in Proposition F?
First, private rehabilitation of 28 acres of taxpayer land
at Pier 70, without tax subsidy (unlike the aborted professional basketball arena proposed at Pier 32-34) constitutes exemplary management of public property.
Secondly, construction of up to 2,000 residences, commercial and office space and public parks without taxpayer money will increase our property tax base and
sales tax revenue, enabling payment of pension,
health and bond liabilities of current taxpayers and
voters.
Proposition F merits approval by taxpayers and nontaxpayers.
That’s why the only Taxpayer Association in San
Francisco strongly recommends a “yes” vote.
San Francisco Taxpayers Association
Retired Superior Court Judge Quentin L. Kopp
President
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Taxpayers Association.
The two contributors to the true source recipient committee:
Denise La Pointe, Richard Hall.
We support Proposition F because of the strong commitment made to hiring local residents for the thousands of construction jobs -- union construction jobs -that will be created by the project over 10 to 15 years.
Local hiring means local opportunities for local
workers. We want to make sure that the economic
benefits generated in San Francisco stay in San
Francisco - and that’s just what Proposition F will
enable.
But more importantly, by committing to hiring San
Franciscans for a mandatory, not “good faith,”
minimum of 30% of all construction jobs on privately
constructed buildings, something never done before
in this city, Proposition F will create access to jobs
with high wages, benefits and strong working conditions, providing opportunities to break persistent
cycles of poverty and unemployment.
We urge you to vote “Yes “ on Proposition F - it’s good
for the local community, good for local workers, and
good for San Francisco.
Aboriginal Blackman United
Brightline Defense Project
Build Bayview
Charity Cultural Services Center
Northern California Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
Sustainable Futures
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Brightline Defense Project.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
FORMER SHIPYARD WORKERS SUPPORT
PROPOSITION F
Finally, there is a straightforward proposal to maintain
and restore one of the oldest and largest historic
industrial complexes remaining in San Francisco and
preserve and respect its vibrant historic past.
Today it is sadly deteriorating and isolated by barbed
wire, yet Pier 70 at its peak was a major shipbuilding
center of the West Coast for over 100 years.
Ferryboats, schooners and river steamboats were built
there, as well as the site to major manufacturing companies that played significant roles in the expansion of
the western economy as well as military and labor
history in the 19th and 20th century – like Union Iron
Works and Bethlehem Steel. At the height of the war
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
118
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
effort, approximately 18,500 men and women worked
there in any given day, many of whom succeeded in
creating organized unions for the first time.
The long whistle signaling a shift change was silenced
long ago, and maritime history in San Francisco is a
bygone era – but now, with the hustle and bustle of
new jobs, a new generation of residents will bring
back life and energy to the waterfront, enabling people
to see and appreciate history for generations to come.
Vote YES on Proposition F to honor and respect the
maritime history and workers on Pier 70.
William Perez, Former Shipyard Worker
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
BAYVIEW-HUNTERS POINT COMMUNITY MEMBERS
SAY YES ON PROPOSITION F
Proposition F will enhance the southern waterfront,
and continue to lift our communities to benefit from
San Francisco’s prosperity and growth.
By offering 30% affordable housing, and demanding
30% of construction jobs for San Franciscans plus up
to 10,000 permanent jobs – Prop F gives our community and our youth a chance to stay in San Francisco to
work, live, recreate and build their lives to be productive citizens.
Our merchant corridors and small businesses will
benefit from the transportation improvements and
new residents, allowing our neighborhoods to share in
the success of the rest of San Francisco.
Proposition F also creates 9 acres of new waterfront
parks, open space and permanent access to the shoreline accessible by all. This allows even more recreation
and trails linking our neighborhoods with the promise
of a great quality of life in our new and existing communities.
Please vote YES on F!
Rev. Arelious Walker
Wing Ng
Timothy T. Moses
Winnie Tran
Scott Madison
Servio Gomez
Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt
38-EN-N14-CP118
Mellon D. Scott Jr.
Claude Wilson
Rev. Carolyn Scott
Matt Kocks
Linda Fadeke Richardson
Dorris Vincent
Dennis Lumsey
Verla Williams
Cheryl Taylor
Ethel VanderVall
Lumukanda Abdul-Kenyatta
Mary H. Phillips
Albert Patterson
Theodore Hunt
Alise Vincent
James T. Wright
Ronald C. Watts
Pastor Joesiah Bell
Micha Fobbs
Ollie Mixon
Dedria Smith
Alex Prince
Francine B. Carter
Ave Moore
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
Asian Americans for Proposition F
As leaders in our community, we’re voting YES on
Proposition F.
The project will provide tremendous opportunities for
families while maintaining a balance of the new and
old by preserving the historic buildings and traditions
of a formerly bustling shipyard and waterfront.
It builds the new housing San Franciscans are
demanding and desperately need, with 30% affordable
housing for low and middle income households. And
it creates up to 10,000 new jobs, adding diversity to
our economy and enhancing opportunity for all.
This is the right step forward for San Francisco.
Please join us and VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION F!
David Chiu, President, Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Eric Mar
Fiona Ma, Former State Assemblymember
Chinese American Democratic Club
Doug Chan, Civil Service Commissioner*
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP119
Gregory D. Chew, San Francisco Arts Commissioner*
Caryl Ito, Airport Commissioner*
Albert Ko, Former President, 2nd District PTA*
George K. Lau, Former Fire Commissioner*
Frank W. Lee, Building Inspection Commissioner*
Marian Lam
Gregory Low
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
LATINOS FOR UNION IRON WORKS / PIER 70 and
PROPOSITION F
Proposition F respects the voice of the community and
surrounding neighborhoods by putting forth a project
that will revitalize and enhance an abandoned and
blighted area of the southern waterfront.
Whether it’s the jobs, housing, new parks and artists’
space, it opens the doors of opportunity and progress
for our community.
We strongly support the precedent of 30% affordable
on-site housing and the commitment to 30% local hire
for construction jobs.
Vote YES on Proposition F
San Francisco Latino Democratic Club
Treasurer Jose Cisneros
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor David Campos
Joshua Arce, Civil Rights Attorney
Brigitte Davila, President, San Francisco District 11
Democratic Club*
Gabriel Medina, Vice President, San Francisco Latino
Democratic Club
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
119
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
PARENTS FOR PLAY SAY VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION F
The prospect of 9 acres of new parks and open space
plus recreation and community garden areas in one of
the most underserved parts of our city makes the
Union Iron Works / Pier 70 site a boon for families with
children.
Play supports children’s learning and development.
And in an urban environment, every playground and
green space is cherished. We support Proposition F for
the commitment to create new recreation areas, playgrounds, pathways, trails, and parks in a never-before
accessed part of the shoreline of San Francisco Bay.
Parks and recreation enable children from all socioeconomic circumstances to participate. Opportunities
to play and recreate make our communities livable,
and help build young hearts, minds and bodies for a
healthy sustainable future for San Francisco.
Holly Allen, Potrero Hill Parent
Mc Allen, Dogpatch Parent
Stacey Bartlett, Potrero Hill Parent
Bernadette Doerr, Dogpatch Parent
Lesley Grossblatt, Dogpatch Parent
Alisha Holloway, Dogpatch Parent
Jonathon Kass, Potrero Hill Parent
Oliver Sjahsam, Dogpatch Parent
Jeremy Regenbogen, Potrero Hill Parent
Michelle Regenbogen, Potrero Hill Parent
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
LGBT Community Supports Proposition F
The LGBT Community is united in support of the
Union Iron Works/Pier 70 project.
Imagining a former bustling, hustling industrial and
shipbuilding site transformed into a sustainable new
neighborhood with 30% affordable housing, parks and
retail space is exhilarating for all those who love San
Francisco. It’s time our city reclaims the vacant,
chained off 28 acres of waterfront and open space
while preserving the majesty of this historic place.
VOTE YES on PROPOSITION F – let’s build our future
while honoring our past together!
State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
120
Paid Arguments – Proposition F
Treasurer Jose Cisneros
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Rafael Mandelman, Past President, Harvey Milk LGBT
Democratic Club*
Zoe Dunning, Co-Chair, Alice B. Toklas LGBT
Democratic Club*
Brian Basinger, Executive Director, AIDS Housing
Alliance/SF
Matt Dorsey, DCCC member*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yes on F.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
FC Pier 70, LLC.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
38-EN-N14-CP120
Political gridlock and endless process have stalled the
revival of too much of our waterfront - the voters have
a chance to jump-start the rebirth of a key piece of it.
We vigorously opposed Prop B, the June 2014 waterfront height limit ballot measure and the reason why
the current Pier 70 ballot measure became necessary.
We believe Prop B is poor public policy, sets a harmful
precedent and is probably illegal. In spite of this, no
public interest is served by delaying this project any
longer – Pier 70 should be put back into productive
use as soon as possible. This is an excellent proposal
that will build a wonderful neighborhood with lots of
housing at a time we absolutely need it.
Vote YES on Prop F!!
The San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Housing Action Coalition.
SUPPORT THE PIER 70 PROJECT!
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F
After reviewing Forest City’s proposed design for Pier
70 in detail, our members concluded that this development is an excellent one that deserves your support it’s much too good an opportunity to pass up. It will
open a long-derelict, fenced-off part of our waterfront
and create in its place a desirable new neighborhood.
It brings vibrant new uses: housing, retail, offices, historic preservation and beautiful open space to an area
that now is inaccessible to the public. Forest City has
done an exemplary job in incorporating extensive
community input. The design modestly increases
heights, and adds housing in proximity to the City’s
new job centers that will address the current jobshousing imbalance in this area. Finally, it proposes up
to 2,000 badly needed new homes with 30 percent of
them permanently affordable - a far higher rate than
most standard market-rate developments can deliver.
San Francisco needs much more affordable housing,
which is why we support Proposition Prop F. The Pier
70 project will set a precedent for responsible marketrate development in San Francisco by providing 30%
affordable, on-site housing for low and moderate
income households. This also aligns with the important Housing Balance goal of ensuring that a minimum
of 30% of all housing production is affordable across
the City.
Vote YES on F.
The council of Community Housing Organizations
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: The Council of Community Housing
Organizations.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition F
No Paid Arguments AGAINST Proposition F Were Submitted
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
122
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G
G
38-EN-N14-CP122
Additional Transfer Tax on Residential
Property Sold Within 5 Years of Purchase
Shall the City impose an additional tax of between 14% and 24% on the
total sale price of certain multi-unit residential properties that are sold
within five years of purchase or transfer, subject to certain exceptions?
YES
NO
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
• The property is sold for an amount equal to or
less than what the seller paid for the property;
The Way It Is Now: The City collects a transfer tax on
sales of most real property in San Francisco. The tax
rate depends on the sale price of the property. The
lowest tax rate is 0.5%, for property sold for $250,000
or less. The highest tax rate is 2.5%, for property sold
for $10,000,000 or more. The tax rate is not affected by
how long a property is owned.
• The property is sold within one year of a property
owner’s death;
The Proposal: Proposition G would impose an additional tax on the total sale price of certain multi-unit
residential properties that are sold within five years of
purchase or transfer. The following table shows the tax
rates that would apply:
Length of Time Seller Has Owned
the Property
Tax Rate
Less than one year
24%
One to two years
22%
Two to three years
20%
Three to four years
18%
Four to five years
14%
This additional tax would apply to sales occurring on
or after January 1, 2015.
This additional tax would not apply in the following
circumstances:
• The property is a single-family house or condominium and does not include an in-law unit;
• The property is legally restricted to low- and middle-income households;
• The property is newly built housing;
• The property meets the following criteria: it contains no more than two dwelling units; the seller
applied on or before July 1, 2014, for a building
permit for a project with a total construction cost
of $500,000 or more; and the last permit was
issued no more than a year before the sale of the
property; or
• The sale of the property is exempt from the existing transfer tax.
This measure would also authorize the Board of
Supervisors to create additional exemptions from both
the existing transfer tax and this proposed additional
tax for properties that are subject to affordabilitybased restrictions.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want the
City to impose an additional tax of between 14% and
24% on the total sale price of certain multi-unit residential properties that are sold within five years of
purchase or transfer, subject to certain exceptions.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
the City to impose this additional tax.
• An owner of the property, including a tenancy-incommon unit, has used it as a primary residence
for at least one year immediately before the sale;
• The property contains more than 30 separate residential units;
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP123
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G
123
Controller’s Statement on “G”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition G:
Should the proposed initiative ordinance be approved
by the voters, in my opinion, it could have an impact
on government revenues. The proposed ordinance
may affect property sales and therefore the transfer
tax revenues received by the City.
The ultimate effects of the ordinance would depend on
property owners’ behavior and on market conditions.
In the event that the high transfer tax rates imposed
by the ordinance cause owners to hold property for
longer than they would have otherwise, and/or
reduces the number of property transactions, the ordinance would effectively decrease the transfer tax revenue received by the City.
The amendment provides for a surtax added to the
existing property transfer tax imposed on certain residential properties if they are purchased and sold
within a five year period. Current transfer tax rates
range from 0.5% of the sale price for properties less
than $250,000 to 2.5% for properties greater than $10
million. The surtax would range from 24% to 14%
depending on the length of time a property was held
between purchase and sale. Exemptions are provided
for various types of properties and ownership circumstances.
In a typical year over the last eight year period,
approximately 60 properties would have been subject
to the tax had it been in effect, and been subject to an
average surtax amount of approximately $413,000.
How “G” Got on the Ballot
On June 17, 2014, the Department of Elections received
a proposed ordinance signed by the following
Supervisors: Avalos, Campos, Kim, Mar.
The City Elections Code allows four or more
Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot in this
manner.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
124
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G
38-EN-N14-CP124
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition G
San Francisco is becoming the most unaffordable city
in the country. As we experience our worst housing
crisis in history, too many of our friends and neighbors are being forced to leave. Driving this crisis is the
“flipping” of properties: quickly buying and reselling
apartment buildings for windfall profits. As a result we
are losing the people who have made our City work:
Teachers, Nurses, First - Responders, Service Workers
and many others. The character of San Francisco is in
jeopardy.
The speculators who have descended on our neighborhoods have no interest in making long- term
investments in our city. After flipping one building,
they move on to another and another. Their mantra:
‘Buy, push out residents and businesses, and sell.’
Today the city has no effective policy to control speculators. There is no law to stop them from buying and
flipping buildings. Our limited supply of housing is
being auctioned off without care for the families or
communities impacted. To sustain our economy and
the character of our city, we must rein in this speculative wave.
Proposition G is a critical step towards addressing this
crisis.
Proposition G will require speculators to operate by
reasonable rules and encourage them to invest in the
City for the long term. Proposition G will:
• require investors in apartment buildings to buy and
hold their buildings for a minimum of five years or
pay a graduated surtax on the re-sale price;
• encourage new construction of housing;
• encourage preservation of housing affordable to a
majority of San Franciscans;
• impose no new taxes on owners of single family
homes or condominiums.
We need the protection that Proposition G provides to
save homes and protect our neighborhoods.
Mike Casey, Hotel - Restaurant Employees Union Local 2
Claudia Tirado, Elementary School Teacher*
Ted Gullicksen, SF Tenants Union
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition G
Speculators make great political scapegoats. Hating
on people who make quick money by smart investing
is perennially popular. But real estate speculation
doesn’t just happen, it happens due to specific circumstances. People “flip” houses mainly because prices
keep going up.
So why do prices keep rising? Some blame San
Francisco’s housing crisis on the recent tech boom.
But that’s wrong. Prices have been trending upward
for decades, the natural result of constricting supply
via anti-development policies while demand
increased.
Of course there’s also inflation, the natural result of
the Fed creating money out of thin air.
because, as proponents observe, an empty building
typically sells for 20% more than an occupied one.
So what Prop. G would effectively do is incentivize
speculators to keep their buildings empty for at least
five years instead of just a year or two -- further
reducing the available housing supply and increasing
prices.
In other words, this measure intended to keep a lid on
prices by punishing speculation will likely make matters worse.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
www.LPSF.org
To make a long story short, prices rise mainly because
government policies are designed that way.
Maybe that’s intentional, maybe not. We’ll refrain from
speculating. Laws often have unintended consequences, and no knows exactly how markets will
respond. However one can examine the incentives
being created.
Proposition G would impose a tax of up to 24% on
properties held less than five years. Meanwhile, no
one planning to flip a property wants to rent it out,
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP125
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition G
125
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition G
Real estate is a pawn in the game of global finance.
Easy money here and easy money from abroad work
to accelerate the unaffordability of San Francisco. This
proposition does nothing to alleviate the driving force,
but it is the blunt tool designed to punish small players at the end of the chain of money creation. The
hated speculator. There would be no speculators if
there was nothing to speculate on. They are speculating on inflation. The inflation is not their fault. They
didn’t print trillions of dollars out of thin air.
What is also interesting about this proposition, like
almost all politics these days, is that it exempts the big
guys. Have more than thirty units, flip away.
big corporations who have access to super cheap
money and can afford to let the property lie fallow for
five years to avoid the tax while inflation rages on. Do
you really want to punish the little guys who are not
the cause of the problem, and reward the giant corporations that control and feed at the trough of the
Federal Reserve’s cheap loans? Do you want another
law that encourages more empty buildings waiting to
escape another tax?
Vote NO on Prop G.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco
San Francisco Libertarian Campaign Committee
This proposition also deters another class of speculators: the improvers. The small business that is good at
renovating and doing it in a timely manner. The tax is
many times the existing rate. It is effectively a ban
with exemptions for politically sensitive classes.
It is a universal law of human nature that every law
has unintended consequences. It is likely that a new
class of speculator will emerge. It will probably be the
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition G
San Francisco is facing the worst housing crisis in its
history and real estate speculators are making windfall
profits as people lose their homes. We can keep the
City affordable and protect our neighborhoods by
passing Proposition G.
Don’t believe the real estate industry’s lies – they
have done nothing to help address San Francisco’s
housing crisis and have a financial interest in allowing
speculation to continue.
In 1978, Harvey Milk introduced legislation to stop real
estate speculators and help keep people in their
homes. It never became law but now, nearly 40 years
later, rampant real estate speculation is making the
City unaffordable once again.
Proposition G does not apply to any single family
home, condominium or any owner occupied housing –
only speculators who flip buildings will pay this tax.
San Francisco values mean choosing people over
profit – together we can pass Proposition G to stop the
speculation and finish what Harvey Milk started.
Join us and the San Francisco Democratic Party in voting Yes on Proposition G.
Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
Cleve Jones, The Names Project AIDS Memorial Quilt
Senior and Disability Action
San Francisco Labor Council
Proposition G is a measured response to our housing
crisis and is targeted at the multi-unit apartment buildings where the problem of flipping is the worst: buildings able to be converted to condos.
Proposition G encourages property owners to make
long term investment in our communities. New owners of multi-unit buildings do not pay the tax if they
make a long term investment.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
126
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Between 2009 and 2013, 78% of all Ellis Act evictions
in San Francisco were in buildings that changed hands
within five years or less according to Anti-Eviction
Mapping Project research. The straight line relationship between speculation and evictions is clear.
Proposition G protects rent controlled buildings,
exempting single family homes, new construction,
and very large buildings.
Proposition G is a reasonable solution to an unreasonable situation and will reduce the unjust eviction of
our neighbors, friends, and families.
Yes on G.
The Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Prop G good for Affordable Housing
San Francisco needs immediate solutions to our
housing affordability crisis for working and middle
class residents of the City. We do not need real estate
speculators prospecting our city’s existing precious
housing stock and driving up rents and fueling evictions. Prop G offers a real way to stop speculation and
keep San Francisco affordable for all.
Vote YES on G to keep housing affordable!
The Council of Community Housing Organizations
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
Chinatown Community Development Center
Community Housing Partnership
SF Community Land Trust
Dolores Street Community Services
HomeownershipSF
Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
Mission Economic Development Agency
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: The Council of Community Housing
Organizations.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
As Asian American and Pacific Islander service providers, we are personally committed to helping our City’s
seniors, youth and families. We urge you to vote YES
on G.
Today’s housing crisis hurts the most vulnerable in
our community. Too many long-time San Franciscans
38-EN-N14-CP126
cannot afford to stay in the City. Too many tenants, like
the Lee family evicted last year, are being forced from
their homes without any fault of their own.
Proposition G is a reasonable answer to this crisis. It
discourages unfair speculation in apartments while
NOT increasing taxes on homeowners. Most landlords
are fair and invest in property for the long term - they
have no reason to be concerned about this proposal.
Only short term speculators will be affected.
Proposition G protects seniors, families, and affordable housing. It will prevent more families from losing
their homes. Proposition G deserves support from us
all.
Anni Chung
Rev. Norman Fong
Pam Tau Lee
Steve Nakajo
Chris Punongbayan
Anthony Robles
Bernadette Sy
Sarah Wan
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: The Authors.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Proposition G is Good for Neighborhoods
Real estate speculation is undermining the character,
diversity and affordability of all of our neighborhoods!
It affects homeowners and tenants.
Long-term investment and long-term residents are
good for neighborhoods. Short-term flips are not
San Francisco is a city of neighborhoods – let’s preserve them!
Vote YES on G!
Jason Henderson, Hayes Valley Neighborhood
Association*
Paul Wermer, Neighborhood Network*
Bruce Bonaker
Richard Johnson, Co-founder, Community Partners
United*
Daniela Kirshenbaum, SF Neighborhood Network*
Alan Beach-Nelson, Eureka Valley Neighborhood
Association*
Judy Berkowitz, President, Coalition for San Francisco
Neighborhoods*
Danny Yadegar, Duboce Triangle
Marlayne Morgan
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP127
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Franciscans Against Real Estate Speculation.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Eviction Defense Collaborative.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Ammiano Says Yes on G!
Real estate speculation is driving up housing prices
and fueling evictions. With the defeat of Ellis Act
reform in Sacramento this year, it is imperative we act
locally to stop speculative behavior that is hurting
both tenants and homeowners. Prop G will do that.
We are proud to be San Francisco homeowners and to
support Proposition G.
Vote YES on G!
Being a property speculator is not the same as being a
homeowner in San Francisco. Prop G is about speculators, not us.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tenants Union.
It does not increase taxes on any single-family homes
or condominiums, owner-occupied TICs, and even
homes with in-laws units. We don’t believe the lies
being made about Prop G by realtors.
Speculators and the instability they create are not
good for homeowners, neighborhoods, or our City.
We vote YES on G.
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Tenants Rights Organizations Say Yes on G
San Francisco is facing a severe housing crisis with
soaring rents and evictions. Real estate speculators
are driving this crisis by preying on our most vulnerable tenants. Everyone is at risk! We need to stop the
flip! Vote Yes on G!
Buck Bagot
Katy Wilcoxen
Amy Beinart
Jeffrey Miller*
Bill Shields
Laurel Muniz
Affordable Housing Alliance
Community Tenants Association
Eviction Defense Collaborative
Housing Rights Committee
SF Tenants Union
Tenderloin Housing Clinic
Tenants Together
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tenants Union.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Franciscans Against Real Estate Speculation.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Eviction Defense Collaborative.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Protect our Neighborhoods, Vote Yes on G!
As a long time homeowner, I am voting Yes on G to
protect our neighborhoods from out of control real
estate speculation.
Esther Marks
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Franciscans Against Real Estate Speculation.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Eviction Defense Collaborative.
127
Workers Say Yes on G
Most evictions in San Francisco are being done by just
12 or so speculators. They buy, evict and then sell at
huge profits. Prop G will put the brakes on these speculators. Vote YES.
Eviction Free San Francisco
Anti Eviction Mapping Project
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tenants Union.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Democratic Party Says Yes on G!
San Francisco is facing the most severe housing crisis
in history. We need Prop G to stop the epidemic of
evictions by real estate speculators. Vote YES.
San Francisco Democratic Party
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
128
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
38-EN-N14-CP128
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Democratic Party.
California Alliance for Retired Americans
FDR Democratic Club of SF PAC
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Senior and Disability Action (individual donations).
Real estate speculators have descended on the
Mission District, displacing thousands of Latino families from their homes and businesses. We need to
keep San Francisco affordable for all. Vote YES on G.
Causa Justa :: Just Cause
Mission Economic Development Association
PODER
Latino Democratic Club
CALLE 24 LATINO CULTURAL DISTRICT
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tenants Union.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Workers Say Yes on G
San Francisco workers --the people who make this city
function --are being driven out by real estate speculators who are driving up rents and evictions. Prop G
will end rampant speculation. Vote YES.
San Francisco Labor Council
UNITE HERE Local 2
Jobs With Justice
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tenants Union.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
We need to stop the runaway real estate speculation
which is fueling our housing crisis. Join us in voting
YES on G.
Sup. John Avalos
Sup. David Campos
Sup. Eric Mar
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tenants Union.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Stop Evictions of Seniors and People with Disabilities
Seniors and people with disabilities are being evicted
from their homes by real estate speculators who flip
(buy, evict, and sell). No more evictions! YES on G!
Senior and Disability Action
Gray Panthers
Independent Living Resource Center SF
AIDS Legal Referral Panel
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
We are African-American homeowners who successfully fought Wall St. banks and their predatory loans
that resulted in foreclosure for so many of our neighbors. Many others were not as fortunate.
City Hall has ignored numerous recommendations to
reign in profit driven speculation and displacement to
protect the remaining black communities. As a result
we saw the loss of a generation of middle-class communities of color. African-Americans are now below
6% of the population of a city famous for its diversity.
The wave of real estate speculation that impacted our
neighborhoods now has expanded in other forms with
evictions displacing thousands across the city. Once
again speculators seek short term gains at the expense
of current residents.
We stand in unity with tenants all over the city in
support of Proposition G to stop such speculation and
save San Francisco’s economic and social diversity.
Let’s join together to stop all forms of greedy Wall
Street speculation and before it is too late.
YES ON PROP G FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE
CITY.
Frank King
Buck Bagot
Vivian Richardson
Thigdora Batte
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Buck Bagot.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Don’t believe the Realtor Association’s lies about Prop.
G. Get the facts about this carefully written measure.
Visit www.SpeculationFreeSF.com for more information about Prop. G.
Prop. G will help stop real estate speculators from
ruining our neighborhoods. Vote “yes” on G!
Dean Preston
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: The Author.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP129
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Speculation driven evictions prey on immigrants and
exploit their limited English capacities and documentation status. Speculation drives up rents making
housing unaffordable for immigrants in all of San
Francisco. We need to stop the flip. Vote Yes on G.
Dolores St. Community Services
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
129
this proposed tax is guaranteed to go toward affordable housing or any housing whatsoever.
San Francisco will lose if Prop. G wins in November:
Small Building Owners Lose: If an owner of a small
building can no longer maintain a property, this
measure will deter owners from making the responsible decision to sell the property.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tenants Union.
Residents of Small Buildings Lose: Residents in small
buildings are not protected from the potential increase
in prices driven by Prop. G.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition G
Residents of Large Buildings Lose: Because the proponents of Prop. G exempted large buildings, they will
remain a target for exactly the kind of “flipping” the
authors say they want to stop.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
STOP UNFAIR TAXATION - VOTE NO ON G
San Francisco imposes a real estate transfer tax of up
to 2.50%.
Proposition G imposes an additional tax of up to 24%
based on length of time residential property is owned.
If Proposition G passes, flats sold for $1 million could
pay $247,500 in taxes! A downtown office building
would have to sell for $12 million to pay the same tax!
Small property owners forced to sell because of job
relocation or other unexpected event could have their
investment wiped out by this unfair tax.
Last year San Francisco collected $225 million in transfer taxes. Enough is enough. Vote NO on G.
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and its 1,500
local businesses.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
San Francisco Apartment Association (SFAA)
We are dedicated to housing affordability and have
been advocates for rental housing in San Francisco
since 1917. Given the current rental conditions in San
Francisco, it is clear that a massive new tax on
housing is not the way to lower our city’s housing
costs. Our city must address the housing affordability
crisis, but San Francisco deserves real solutions --not
last minute measures riddled with loopholes that
saddle the average San Franciscan with a record tax.
This measure will create a new tax on many homes
sold in San Francisco --up to 24% of the total sale
price --making it one of the highest taxes ever levied.
Even worse, not one cent of any revenue raised from
San Francisco deserves a real solution to our very real
housing crisis, not Prop G.
San Francisco Apartment Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Apartment Association PAC.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. West Coast Property Management, 2. West &
Praszker Realtors, 3. Malta & Co. Inc.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Professional Property Management Association of
San Francisco
At the Professional Property Management Association,
we are dedicated to the highest standards of fair,
ethical and effective property management. This
massive new tax on housing is not fair, ethical or
effective. We believe in supporting affordable housing
in San Francisco, but a housing tax with loopholes
that lacks protections for our city’s residents is not the
way to lower housing costs.
Under Prop. G, housing will become more expensive
as it imposes an additional tax and provides no protection from the increased cost being passed on to
homebuyers or tenants. Furthermore, large buildings
are exempted under Prop. G, making them a target for
exactly the kind of “flipping” the measure is supposed
to stop.
In addition, under Prop G, property owners are
deterred from selling property if they can no longer
afford to maintain it. Rather, it will be cheaper for the
property owners to continue owning the property
while failing to maintain it --hurting renters, our
housing stock, and our vibrant neighborhoods.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
130
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
Although proponents of Prop. G have offered it as a
solution to the current housing crisis, not one cent of
any revenue raised through this new tax is required to
go towards affordable housing or any new housing.
We need real solutions to the housing crisis --not a
measure so poorly drafted it will make the problem
worse.
Professional Property Management Association of
San Francisco
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Apartment Association PAC.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. West Coast Property Management, 2. West &
Praszker Realtors, 3. Malta & Co. Inc.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Coalition for Better Housing (CBH)
We cannot tax our way out of a housing crisis. Prop. G
proposes a surtax of up to 24% on top of the current
real property transfer tax. San Francisco is facing a
major housing crisis and imposing an additional tax
that makes housing more expensive makes absolutely
no sense.
This is an unprecedented tax and is levied on the full
sale price of the property, regardless of whether an
owner profits on the sale. Proponents of Prop. G often
cite Supervisor Harvey Milk as the author of this idea.
However, the measure that Supervisor Milk proposed
only levied a fee on profits gained by owners, not on
the sale price. Milk also included exemptions for the
average San Francisco homeowner in order to truly
and accurately target speculators, while Prop. G leaves
many vulnerable to this massive housing tax.
This law isn’t just about future homebuyers. If this
measure becomes law, it will apply retroactively,
which means new homeowners who have purchased
their properties in the last five years should beware
--this law will apply to you even if you purchased your
property before the passes.
Although many renters in San Francisco aspire to
become homeowners, the cost of housing keeps the
ownership dream out of reach of many middle class
families. The Prop. G housing tax will do nothing to
make this dream more achievable and may actually
make it even harder to obtain. This tax will lead to
fewer properties on the housing and rental market and
make those homes that are available more expensive.
At a time when a lack of housing is clearly increasing
costs, it makes no sense to encourage inventory to be
constricted even more.
38-EN-N14-CP130
Coalition for Better Housing
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Apartment Association PAC.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. West Coast Property Management, 2. West &
Praszker Realtors, 3. Malta & Co. Inc.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
This will create a new tax on many homes sold in San
Francisco—up to 24% of the total sale price, or
upwards of $240,000. San Francisco homes to buy
and apartments to rent already cost too much. This
massive new tax will only drive up the cost of housing
further.
Don’t raise the cost of housing - NO on Prop. G
Michael Chan
Asian Inc., Affordable Housing Provider
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Association of Realtors.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
As realtors, our job is to get families into homes and
help people achieve homeownership. We know that to
do that, we must increase housing availability and
improve housing affordability. Prop. G will make
housing more expensive and harder to find because it
forces homeowners to keep their property off the
market or face a massive tax bill.
Prop. G means home sellers will face a surtax of up to
24% of the total sale price, which is in addition to the
current transfer tax. While some home sellers will
absorb some of this additional cost, the reality is that
much of this expense will get passed on to new homebuyers and then future tenants.
This housing tax is significant enough to make home
sellers reconsider selling their property altogether. It
will cause owners to hold their property longer than
they would have otherwise, which would constrict the
number of properties available on the market even
more. Many agree that the current lack of inventory is
what is driving record housing costs, and it is apparent that Prop. G will only drive those costs higher.
There are many steps that must be taken to address
San Francisco’s pressing housing issues, but we
believe that the most important step towards creating
more affordable and available housing is to build new
housing for all income levels.
Eugene Pak
Government Affairs Committee Co-Chair, Board of
Directors
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP131
San Francisco Association of Realtors
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Association of Realtors.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
60% of Chinese Americans in San Francisco are small
property owners, and many of them rent out in-law
units. Proposition G will force small homeowners into
removing in-law units once renters vacate, which will
create a huge reduction in affordable housing supply
in the city. For Chinese Americans who are renters,
half of them are denied rent control and paying market-rate rent. Proposition G will increase housing costs
and further increase market rents for these first-generation immigrants.
This unprecedented new tax on housing, which will hit
both owners and tenants, is not the way to lower
housing costs. The only thing that Proposition G will
do is worsen the housing affordability crisis.
Please vote NO on Proposition G.
Josephine Zhao
AsianAmericanVoter.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Asian American Voters.org.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
We are advocates for public policies that will reduce
barriers between home ownership and Asian
American communities. Prop. G is a barrier between
home ownership and all San Franciscans. By imposing
a particularly onerous tax on the sale of property, up
to 24% of the total sale price, the American Dream of
homeownership becomes a distant dream for many.
It makes homes more expensive because, in order to
avoid this punitive tax, owners will hold on to their
properties longer—constricting supply in an already
scarce housing market. In addition, this measure
makes homes more expensive because it is very likely
that this is a cost that will not only be paid by sellers,
but passed on to buyers.
Prop. G won’t help stabilize the housing market for
middle class San Franciscans or protect low-income
residents. Instead, it will make housing more expensive for everyone, whether you rent or own. It is indisputable that property costs in San Francisco have skyrocketed—reaching $1 million median home price, but
Prop. G is not the answer to making San Francisco
more affordable. A $240,000 tax on housing, in addition to the city’s transfer tax, is not the way to make
homes more affordable.
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
131
Allen Ching
President
Asian Real Estate Association of America
San Francisco Pennisula Chapter
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Association of REALTORS®.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
For many in the Chinese community, homeownership
is a part of the American Dream that brought them to
this country. Immigrants aspire to live in a country
where success is attainable through hard work and
nothing defines that better than the ability to own your
own home. Now, Prop. G threatens this dream.
We are undoubtedly facing a housing crisis in San
Francisco, but Prop. G is not the way to fix it. Prop. G
imposes a surtax of up to 24% on the sale price of
most homes sold within 5 years of purchase. With the
cost of housing already at record levels, attaching a
tax to our housing makes it even more expensive and
will do nothing to alleviate the current housing crisis.
In fact, Prop. G will make the housing crisis worse.
Many agree that the current housing condition is the
result of a lack of available housing. Over the last two
decades, San Francisco built an average of 1,500 units
per year, which is significantly fewer than the 3,000 to
4,000 units needed to keep pace with demand. Yet, this
measure will deeply impact the estimated 30,000 to
50,000 homes with in-law units in San Francisco—
many of which contribute to the rental market supply.
The logical response of owners risking this tax will be
to avoid that risk by removing in-law units from the
market.
If Prop. G passes, the result will likely be higher rents.
And that’s the last thing San Franciscans can afford.
Chris Siow
President-Elect
Chinese Real Estate Association of America
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Association of REALTORS®.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Stuff happens. There are many reasons why an owner
might sell a building in less than five years. Family
tragedies force us to move to be closer to our loved
ones. We receive unexpected job transfers. We
usually sell to buyers not so different from ourselves,
homeowners. Occasionally we sell to an investor who
may improve the building and resell it; sometimes the
tenants must move. We understand this very upset-
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
132
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
38-EN-N14-CP132
ting to the renters. However, these renters receive up
to one-year’s notice, PLUS, the difference between
their old rent and their new rent for 2 years, a
minimum of $5,200 per occupant. A tenant who must
pay $2000/month more for a similar rental would
receive $48,000 from the owners!
Charles Cagnon, Matthew Del Carlo, Jason P. Clark,
John Dennis, Howard Epstein, Alisa Farenzena, Terence
Faulkner, Barry Graynor, Christine Hughes, Joan
Leone, Rodney Leong, Dana Walsh, Rich Worner,
Gabriella Bartonico, Christopher L. Bowman,
Stephanie Jeong, Daniel Higa
Proposition G adds a new and punishing tax, on the
total SALES PRICE, not the profit, which means that if
the seller receives even $1 more than he paid for the
building, he is subject to the new tax, beginning at
24% in the first year. This tax goes to the San
Francisco General Fund; it does not ease the transition
for the tenant in any way. It will only make all buildings more expensive, and raise the cost of rents.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Republican Party.
For example, if an owner buys a residential property
for $1,000,000 and sells it less than one year later for
$1,000,001, the new tax would be $240,000 (24% of
the sale price), resulting in a huge loss to the seller,
whether a renter was displaced or not. The result will
be FEWER HOMES FOR SALE and FEWER RENTALS
OFFERED to prospective tenants.
We are an organization of owners of small rental
buildings. We advocate for fair landlord/tenant regulations. We support home ownership. VOTE NO ON
PROPOSITION G!
SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Small Property Owners of San Francisco.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
The ill-conceived Proposition G will diminish the
supply and increase the cost of already-scarce and
already-expensive homes, making it even more challenging for middle-class families to buy a home here.
It penalizes property sellers who own for shorter than
an approved duration and sell for non-approved
reasons under a morass of criteria. Who will track,
adjudicate, and pay for this micromanagement?
Illogically, Proposition G exempts millionaire-owned
buildings of 30 units or more from this onerous tax
while penalizing middle-income property owners of
buildings with as few as two units. It could fuel costly
litigation against the City because its imbalances
would cause financial injury.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Charles M. Munger, 2. Christine Hughes,
3. Dhillon Smith.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
We as renters would have supported Prop. G but can’t,
because the exemptions are inadequate. These exemptions could have been easily added without affecting
the intent of the proposition to prevent evictions and
flipping.
Single family homeowners are only exempted from
this tax increase (up to 24% and retroactive) if they are
married couples or single persons. Otherwise, unmarried couples (gay or straight), family members or
friends who hold titles as tenancy-in-common, have to
live in the single family home for 1 year to be exempted. During this time, or the 5-year placed on 2 to 30
units, unexpected circumstances may occur, such as
job transfers, under-employment (but still making
more than 120% of median income), gambling debs,
or stock market crashes. Prop. G would hurt everyday
people who face real life emergencies.
Prop. G will limit renters’ upward mobility by imposing this surtax on single family homes with inlaw
units, which are often the properties first-time homebuyers can afford. This huge surtax levied on the
saleprice of the property (not the net profit), with little
consideration on the nature of the sale, will discourage many renters from becoming homeowners in San
Francisco.
Although we support the prevention of evictions and
flipping, we can’t support this proposition without the
added exemptions.
Steve Robinson
Renters for BetterHousingPolicies.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Renters for BetterHousingPolicies.org.
Vote No on Proposition G
San Francisco Republican Party
Harmeet Dhillon, Chair
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP133
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Voting “No” on Prop. G does not mean that you
support speculation, evictions or the displacement of
long time San Franciscans. It means that you believe
San Francisco needs a more sensible solution to the
housing and affordability crises.
Prop. G is an unprecedented tax on housing, but
revenue generated from the tax IS NOT dedicated to
any affordable housing funds or any housing funds at
all.
In addition, Prop. G threatens a tax of 14-24% on the
sale of the estimated 50,000 single family homes that
happen to have legal or illegal in-law units. With the
median home price in San Francisco reaching $1
million, this means paying an additional $140,000 to
$240,000 in taxes.
There are no exceptions for loss or transfer of job,
death in family or change in circumstance.
There are no exceptions for people over 63, who often
need their homes for financial security and to stay in
San Francisco. There are no exceptions for single-family homes with in-law units. Both were major aspects
of Harvey Milk’s proposal.
Prop. G offers no tenant protections, but threatens an
astronomical tax on housing across the board without
regard to evictions or tenant displacement.
As a renter, a housing tax that does not protect
tenants but increases housing costs for both tenants
and owners just doesn’t make sense.
Vote No on G. San Francisco deserves a better solution.
Charley Goss, Renter
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Apartment Association PAC.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. West Coast Property Management, 2. West +
Praszker Realtors, 3. Malta + Co. Inc.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
When San Franciscans invest in their home, it’s the
most important decision they make.
Thousands of San Franciscans own homes with the
help of City programs for down payment assistance,
financial counseling and below market rate development.
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
133
Proposition G says it protects renters. Sadly,
Proposition G is so poorly worded that everyday
homeowners could see an unexpected 25% tax and
lose everything. The same homeowners who received
City help would be especially vulnerable under
Proposition G.
First time homeowners who realized their dream
would be subject to this tax if they sell their home
within five years. Medical emergency or job loss are
not considered under Proposition G.
There are no exemptions for these critical situations,
but there are other loopholes that let out of town
property owners off the hook.
San Francisco must do everything to keep working
families in our City. Proposition G forces families out.
Vote No on G.
Fiona Ma, CPA
Candidate for State Board of Equalization
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Katy Tang
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Fiona Ma for State Board of Equalization 2014.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Proponents of Prop. G say Supervisor Harvey Milk first
proposed this idea, but that is misleading. Prop. G is
far from the measure envisioned by the late
Supervisor Harvey Milk.
The measure Milk proposed only levied a fee on
profits gained by owners, not on the sales price. Milk’s
measure exempted the up to 50,000 single-family
homes with secondary (in-law) units. He also exempted any owner over 63, understanding that many
seniors use their homes as retirement nest eggs.
We can all agree that there is much to be done to fix
the housing crisis in San Francisco, but Prop. G is not
the answer and not the answer proposed by former
Supervisor Milk.
Vote no on Prop. G.
Marianne Mazzucco Thompson
Third-Generation San Franciscan*
Ken Cleveland, Member*
Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
134
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
38-EN-N14-CP134
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Prop. G is a housing tax that increases the cost of
housing in San Francisco by imposing a surtax of up
to 24 percent of the sale price of most residential
properties.
We need real solutions to make housing more affordable – not a poorly planed and obviously political
measure that is certain to backfire.
If this measure becomes law, it will apply retroactively,
which means new homeowners who have purchased
their properties in the last five years should beware—
this law will apply to you even if you purchased your
property in the past.
Prop. G carries no protections for seniors. There are no
exemptions if you get sick, lose a job or need to care
for a family member. And remember, it is not a tax on
profits; it is a tax on the entire sales price of your
home or unit up to 24%, which makes it the largest tax
in San Francisco history.
This measure was rushed to the ballot, and it shows. It
is full of politics, loopholes and plans that will backfire.
Don’t make the problem worse. Vote NO on G.
Calvin Louie
Chinese American Democratic Club
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Prop. G will create a new tax on many homes sold in
San Francisco—up to 24% of the total sales price. San
Francisco homes and rentals already cost too much.
This massive new tax will only mean they cost more.
Far from protecting the middle class, Prop. G contains
zero protections against this tax being passed on to
new homebuyers and tenants.
San Franciscans who have made this city great should
be able to stay in this city, and people who work in
San Francisco should be able to afford homes in San
Francisco. We need to build more housing – and the
last thing we want to do is put up to 50,000 affordable
rental units at risk.
Please join us in voting NO on Prop. G
Vince Courtney Jr.
LiUNA! Local 261
Construction and General Laborers Union
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth.
A new housing tax is not the way to make housing in
San Francisco more accessible or affordable for
middle class families. Prop. G will only make the
housing crisis worse, and it will leave many middle
class families vulnerable.
As written, this measure will impact the estimated
50,000 single-family homes with in-law units in San
Francisco. Many will be faced with an additional tax
bill of up to $240,000.
This new tax will only increase the cost of homes. If
people hold on to their properties longer to avoid the
tax, there will be even less available housing—making
housing harder to find and more expensive. Or, if
people sell their homes, they face an unprecedented
tax bill that they will try to recoup with even higher
sales prices. Rents will also likely go up as new
owners pass on the tax bill to future renters. All these
outcomes are bad for San Franciscans, particularly
middle class families.
We all agree: we need more affordable housing.
Unfortunately, Prop. G makes no provisions to ensure
that the revenue raised from this massive new tax will
be directed towards alleviating the current housing
crisis. Prop. G is bad for San Francisco and bad for the
middle class.
Vote no on Prop. G.
Vince J. Courtney Jr.
Executive Director
Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
A massive new tax on housing, which will hit both
owners and renters, is not the way to lower housing
costs. Prop G won’t stop speculators, but it will hit
small property owners who haven’t evicted anyone
and who need to sell their property within 5 years of
buying it.
Need to sell your property within 5 years of purchase
due to illness, job loss, or needing to move? Get ready
to pay up to 24% of the sale price as a tax. Yes, 24% of
the entire sale price, not just the profit.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP135
There are many personal reasons having nothing to
do with speculation why people have to sell property.
Prop G, however, doesn’t distinguish between speculators and small owners who haven’t evicted anyone.
This housing tax will force owners who have done
nothing wrong to pay a 24% tax on the total sale price
of their property.
Prop G is being misleadingly sold as the speculator
tax proposed by Harvey Milk, but it is no such thing.
Harvey Milk’s measure exempted seniors and singlefamily homes with secondary units. Prop. G does
neither. Moreover, Harvey Milk’s proposal taxed ONLY
THE PROFIT of a short term property sale, whereas
Prop G taxes the ENTIRE SALE PRICE, not just the
profit. This is a huge difference.
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
135
A tax on homes that could be $240,000 or even higher
will just make homes more expensive.
The failure to include large buildings where so many
seniors live shows they didn’t think the measure
through before they rushed it to the ballot.
We need to make housing more affordable, not more
expensive. NO on G!
Mary Jung
Former President*
Asian Pacific Democratic Club
Ted Fang
Former Executive Director*
AsianWeek Foundation
In addition, not one cent of any revenue from Prop G
will have to go toward affordable housing—it can all
be diverted.
Caryl Ito
Founding Member*
Pacific Asian American Women Bay Area Coalition
Prop. G is a massive tax that only makes housing
more expensive—for owners and renters. There are
zero protections against passing on all the costs to
new owners or tenants.
Tom Hsieh
Democratic County Central Committee Member*
We need real solutions to the housing crisis—not a
measure so poorly drafted it will make the problem
worse.
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Katy Tang
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
A punitive tax on housing is not the way to deal with a
housing shortage.
Homeownership is source of great pride and a goal
that many in our community work hard to earn. Today,
we face a very real housing shortage, and we need
thoughtful solutions so that all San Franciscans can
continue to call our city home.
But Prop. G would make it even more difficult for San
Franciscans to buy homes and has the potential to
dramatically reduce supply of both homes and rental
units.
The politicians behind Prop. G may mean well, but
they clearly know little about housing.
Giving owners an incentive to take secondary units off
the market will make rents go higher.
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G
Hardworking San Franciscans are already struggling to
find affordable homes and apartments, and we need
to work together to find a solution to our current
housing crisis. Prop. G is not that solution.
Prop. G would impose a tax of as much as 24 percent
on the sale of any home with a secondary unit if that
home is sold within five years of purchase. The city
estimates there up to 50,000 of these units, which
provide so much of our affordable rental housing.
Giving owners of these units the incentive to take the
rental units off the market will make the housing crisis
worse.
Prop. G fails to provide exemptions for owners who
face real emergencies and need to sell their homes—
job loss or transfer, death in the family, sale to a
family member or financial hardship. And unlike the
legislation proposed by the late Supervisor Harvey
Milk, Prop. G does not exempt seniors.
The hard reality is that Prop. G will make the problem
worse, driving out middle class families because only
the very rich could pay these massive new costs. And
what’s most galling, is that not once cent of the new
tax is earmarked for affordable housing.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
136
Paid Arguments – Proposition G
38-EN-N14-CP136
Prop. G will make the problem worse. Joining us in
voting NO on G.
Mary Jung
Democratic County
Leah Pimentel
Democratic County
Rebecca Prozan
Democratic County
William Fazio
Democratic County
Tom Hsieh
Democratic County
Kat Anderson
Democratic County
Central Committee Member*
Central Committee Member*
Central Committee Member*
Central Committee Member*
Central Committee Member*
Central Committee Member*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP137
H
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition H
137
Requiring Certain Golden Gate Park
Athletic Fields To Be Kept As Grass
With No Artificial Lighting
Shall the City be required to keep natural grass at all athletic fields in
Golden Gate Park west of Crossover Drive and to prohibit nighttime sports
field lighting in these areas?
YES
NO
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
Controller’s Statement on “H”
The Way It Is Now: The City’s Recreation and Park
Department operates and maintains Golden Gate Park
(Park). The Park includes athletic fields located west of
Crossover Drive which begins on the north side of the
Park at 25th Avenue and ends on the south side at
19th Avenue.
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition H:
The largest of the athletic fields west of Crossover
Drive are the Polo Fields and the Beach Chalet Athletic
Fields. These fields are all natural grass and do not
have lights.
The Recreation and Park Commission, the Planning
Commission and the California Coastal Commission
have approved a project that includes replacing the
grass at Beach Chalet Athletic Fields with artificial turf.
That plan would also install field lighting to allow for
nighttime use.
This voter initiative opposes the artificial turf and
nighttime lighting.
The Proposal: Proposition H would require the City to
keep all athletic fields in Golden Gate Park west of
Crossover Drive as natural grass.
Proposition H would also prohibit nighttime sports
field lighting in these areas.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to
require the City to keep natural grass at all athletic
fields in Golden Gate Park west of Crossover Drive and
to prohibit nighttime sports field lighting in these
areas.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
to require the City to keep natural grass at all athletic
fields in Golden Gate Park west of Crossover Drive and
you do not want to prohibit nighttime sports field
lighting in these areas.
Should this the proposed ordinance be approved by
the voters, in my opinion, it would not, in and of itself,
affect the cost of government.
However the ordinance may have the effect of altering
or prohibiting a planned renovation using artificial turf
of the athletic fields near the Beach Chalet in Golden
Gate Park. The City’s Recreation and Parks Department
has a private donor that is expected to provide
approximately $6.0 million for the planned renovation
which may be affected if the proposed ordinance is
approved.
How “H” Got on the Ballot
On July 22, 2014, the Department of Elections certified
that the initiative petition calling for Proposition H to
be placed on the ballot had a sufficient number of
valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
9,702 signatures were required to place an initiative
ordinance on the ballot. This number is equal to 5% of
the total number of people who voted for Mayor in
2011. A random check of the signatures submitted by
the proponents of the initiative petition prior to the
July 7, 2014, submission deadline showed that the
total number of valid signatures was greater than the
number required.
Propositions H and I concern the same subject
matter. If both measures are adopted by the voters, and if there is a conflict between provisions of
the two measures, then some or all of the measure
approved by fewer votes would not go into effect.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
138
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition H
38-EN-N14-CP138
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition H
Please vote yes on Prop H !
HELP SAVE GOLDEN GATE PARK’S BEAUTIFUL AND
WONDERFUL RECREATIONAL SPACES BY KEEPING
THEM NATURAL.
Vote YES on “H” for Healthy kids, sports, a Healthy
environment and a Healthy Golden Gate Park!
Why Prop H?
Rec and Park wants to pave Golden Gate Park’s Beach
Chalet grass fields with 7 acres of artificial turf and
install 150,000 watts of environmentally damaging
sports lighting. The lighting will be on until 10pm
every night. The “rubber crumb” turf consists of
ground-up tires and plastic.
Real Grass filters water back into the aquifer and
makes oxygen-artificial turf makes noxious fumes and water that falls
on fake fields has to be treated with sewage at the
Wastewater treatment plant.
The Rec and Park department (RPD) has failed to follow it’s own Golden Gate Park Master Plan which
states that the western edge of the park remain in a
natural state.
RPD is trying to privatize public assets---the Beach
Chalet athletic fields---so that they can make money
on permits and tournaments. After 7:00pm the fields
will be used almost exclusively by adults, many nonresidents.
Our kids deserve real grass!
Prop H supports renovating the Beach Chalet fields
with real grass and state-of-the-art playing fields construction! Good soccer players prefer real grass. Our
kids deserve the best!
The money is there!
Rec and Park already has $5 million from 2008’s Bond
for a Real Grass renovation and amenities.
There are great alternatives!
We can protect Golden Gate Park AND give kids more
hours of play!
YES on “H” - Protect Golden Gate Park for kids today
and for future generations!
(VOTE NO on “I” - the park’s poison pill)!
Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Sierra Club
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition H
Prop. H Keeps SF Kids from Playing Sports
With new athletic fields at Beach Chalet, we would be
able to fit 1,000 more San Francisco kids playing soccer and other sports. Prop H will deny them this
chance and prevent needed park improvements.
13,000 San Francisco kids play youth soccer. Yet we
have to turn kids away every year because the City’s
fields are full. In order to keep the current grass fields
at Beach Chalet well maintained, the fields are closed
behind locked chain fences for regrowth more than
50% of the time and only available by advanced reservation. If you don’t have a permit, you can’t use the
fields.
ents don’t have to sit in the dirt while watching their
kids play.
A viewing plaza will be built with picnic tables and
barbeques, bike parking and disability paths to
improve access, and a small playground for younger
kids. If Prop. H is approved, none of these improvement will be made.
Please vote no on Prop. H.
San Francisco Youth Soccer League
The plan would triple the amount of play on the fields
and establish permanent “open play time” so anyone
could use the fields even without a permit.
Rain will not run through the turf into the groundwater
or the ocean; it’s captured by a liner that sends it to
the nearby waste treatment facility.
The project will lower fences, remove locks from
gates, renovate bathrooms, and install seating so parArguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP139
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition H
139
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition H
No on Prop. H
Golden Gate Park is for everyone. Prop. H would prevent expanding the use of existing sports fields and
prevent more than 1,000 children from playing soccer.
Vote No on Prop. H.
Golden Gate Park serves many, many different kinds
of people and activities. It is home to meadows, playgrounds and ball courts, miles of bike paths, numerous flower gardens, a few small lakes, a tea garden,
two museums, a few buffalo, an archery range and
athletic fields.
We believe this diversity of activities is critical to the
park’s health and the well being of our city. With limited athletic fields and more and more children wanting to participate in youth sports, Golden Gate Park’s
western sports fields are critical to providing San
Francisco’s children and athletes with safe, accessible
places to exercise. Prop. H will deny many of them
that opportunity.
“The western edge of Golden Gate Park has lacked
activity centers to draw people to use it. With the
exception of the Queen Wilhelmina Garden and the
soccer fields, most of the west end is little visited and
is not an inviting area. Undesirable uses such as
camping and sexual activity have filled the void, aided
by dense growing shrubs. The goal of this area plan is
to increase legitimate activities and transform this part
of the park.”
Prop. H would also cancel approved disability
upgrades, walking paths, bike parking, bathroom renovations, and a new playground and picnic area in
western Golden Gate Park. This is the wrong direction
for our city, our children and the Park.
Please vote No on Prop. H.
San Francisco Parks Alliance
The Golden Gate Park Master Plan even directs the
city to increase public access and use of the west end
of the Park, stating:
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition H
Is Western Golden Gate Park’s most beautiful and tranquil area underused?
If so, it’s because the illegal fence surrounding it
allows only those with paid permits in and keeps
everyone else out. Is that a park for all?
The goal of Proposition H is to renovate this vast
expanse with real grass and open it for the enjoyment
of everyone -- individuals, groups, and soccer players
alike. We deserve recreational areas that do not put
our health at risk or spoil the natural environment for
the sake of an extra plastic field or two.
We deserve tap water unpolluted by toxic tire waste.
We deserve responsible management that does not
bend to the dictates of special interest groups.
Far from cancelling desirable amenities -- paths, toilets, parking, picnicking -- Proposition H judiciously
stipulates that the wooded, parkland character of the
western sector of Golden Gate Park be maintained.
Degradation of this natural environment is not part of
the Master Plan.
Anyone who loves San Francisco for its beauty does
not welcome the destruction of the few remaining
escapes we have left.
“Yes!” on H.
Coalition To Protect Golden Gate Park
Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods
Sierra Club
We deserve leaders who do not shackle taxpayers with
expenses like unwanted, unhealthy play areas that are
costly to install, degrade quickly, and are burdensome
to replace.
Ocean Beach and the entire western end of San
Francisco deserve night skylines free of light pollution.
Stadium lighting does not benefit children. They are
home at night.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
140
Paid Arguments – Proposition H
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
San Francisco’s neighborhoods SUPPORT Prop H!
38-EN-N14-CP140
Proposition I was placed on the ballot solely to override your vote on Proposition H. Vote YES on H and NO
on I.
Vote YES on H:
Healthy kids
Healthy environment
Healthy Golden Gate Park!
Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council
Why Prop H?
Rec & Park wants to pave Golden Gate Park with 7
acres of toxic artificial turf and install 150,000 watts of
environmentally damaging sports lighting.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Our kids deserve real grass!
Prop H supports renovating the Beach Chalet soccer
fields with real grass and state-of-the-art playing fields
construction! Professional soccer players only play on
real grass. Our kids deserve the best!
As a parent, I find it disgraceful that city officials
would consider toxic artificial turf for children’s playing
fields. Artificial turf contains harmful levels of heavy
metals. These cause serious health problems including
cancer and they negatively affect youth brain development. Also, there are documented cases of kids contracting dangerous infections caused by decaying
garbage that cannot biodegrade.
The money is there!
Rec and Park already has $5 million from the 2008
Bond for a grass renovation and amenities.
There are great alternatives!
We can protect Golden Gate Park AND give kids more
hours of play!
Protect Golden Gate Park for kids today and for future
generations!
Vote YES on Prop H
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Established 1972.
45 neighborhood organizations.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods—
CSFN.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Golden Gate Park (GGP) is the jewel in the crown of
San Francisco parks. Every effort should be made to
follow the GGP Master Plan which calls for preserving
quiet enjoyment of the outer lands and a natural
setting.
Vote YES on Proposition H to keep well-maintained
natural grass on the Beach Chalet Soccer Fields and
say NO to Stadium lights 365 days a year until 10 pm.
Recreation and Parks is putting on more commercial
events in GGP and other parks, often to the detriment
of free use and enjoyment by San Francisco residents.
Recreation and Parks has often failed to maintain
existing parks and has no dedicated funding to
remove and replace artificial turf when it wears out in
ten years.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council.
We all want quality athletic fields. Natural grass is the
clear solution.
Artificial turf cannot be recycled. We will have to pay
for its replacement and landfill costs every 10 to 12
years. This goes against San Francisco’s goal of no
landfill waste by 2030.
Artificial turf contributes to global warming; each field
requires almost 2,000 trees to offset its impact on
greenhouse gases. But natural grass fields combat
global warming; each one sequesters carbon dioxide,
cools the environment, and produces oxygen for
roughly 120 people.
Artificial turf prohibits the use of wheel chairs, making
our fields less accessible when we should be providing access for everyone.
The City Fields Foundation is privatizing athletic fields
that belong to all San Franciscans. They are forcing us
to pay to use fields renovated with artificial turf.
Opponents say that people get injured from gopher
holes on natural grass. But this is easily prevented
with wire mesh installed below the grass to prevent
gophers from digging through.
Opponents say that natural grass costs too much to
maintain. But long term maintenance costs for natural
grass fields are equal to those of artificial turf, not
more.
Artificial turf is a problem, not a solution. New York
City has stopped installation of artificial turf and San
Francisco needs to stop also. Let’s maintain natural
grass fields for the health, benefit, and enjoyment of
ALL San Franciscans.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP141
Paid Arguments – Proposition H
141
Please vote Yes on H and No on I.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Edward Pertcheck, Architect
Science teachers say the facts point to “yes” on H !
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Edward Pertcheck.
Brian Cooley
Tom Dallman
Stanley DeBella
Elizabeth Engellenner
Judy Gerber
Kevin C. Hartzog
Virgil Jackson
Ellen Koivisto*
Kyle Liu
Kate Magary*
Mark Rowley
Marloes Sijstermans
Woodrow Smith*
Diana Theriault
Matthew Webb*
Jessica Wong*
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Statement by Educator/Former California Coastal
Commissioner
“The westernmost part of Golden Gate Park, including
the Beach Chalet Fields is in the Coastal zone. What
happens in San Francisco’s Coastal zone is governed
by the Local Coastal Plan . The Local Coastal Plan is
pretty unambiguous it says the goal is to ‘emphasize
the landscape qualities of the western end of the
park…’ It’s pretty clear that the western end of the park
is defined as something unique from the rest of the
park.
Yet the project is the antithesis of what the Local
Coastal Plan (and the Golden Gate Park Master Plan)
has defined. As proposed, it’s an industrial scale sporting facility with nighttime sports lighting and artificial
turf. Common sense says the City’s proposal to pave
over one of the most beautiful parks in the country in
an urban area is a pretty obvious mistake.
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Part of the reason why the California coast is not wallto-wall condos, hotels, and shopping centers for most
of its length is due to citizens realizing that the legacy
for their children is not concrete and asphalt. In a
political climate where environmental concerns are
subservient to campaign contributions, it is up to us to
vote to Protect Our Coast and parks.
National Park Dark Sky supporters and astronomers
say, “Vote YES on H.” PROTECT OUR STARRY SKIES
FOR NOW AND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
In the 1950’s the Embarcadero Freeway had unanimous support — until after it was built and had
destroyed San Francisco’s waterfront. It took three
decades for the people to reverse that mistake. Don’t
let the City make that kind of mistake again. A Yes vote
on H will require that the City maintain natural grass
fields with no nighttime sports lighting in our Coastal
zone. Send a message to officials and those they
appoint. Tell them that you care about the Coastal
resources we share.
Our San Francisco coast has dark skies over its national park lands from the Presidio to Lands End, Sutro
Heights, Ocean Beach and Fort Funston. Birds of the
Pacific Flyway need these dark skies. And this is where
astronomers and families bring their telescopes to
view the starry night sky.
Vote Yes on H.”
Mike Murphy
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Gregory P. Miller.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Ellen Koivisto, Tom Dallman.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
In 2006 the National Park Service adopted a policy to
preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural
darkness in our national parks. A very large dark area
is important for this policy to be effective.
Now our coastal dark skies are being threatened by
the Beach Chalet project, which plans to install
150,000 watts of sports lighting on 60 foot poles in
western Golden Gate Park, next to the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area.
This project will cut a huge hole in our dark sky.
Lighting experts say that a significant proportion of
that light would be reflected off the fields into the
now-dark sky, creating a luminous dome of bright,
white light. These lights would be on until 10:00pm
every night of the year!
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
142
Paid Arguments – Proposition H
These sports lights would be ecologically destructive
and have great negative impact on our National Park,
on birds who travel our coast and on families that
come to the west end of San Francisco to see the
stars.
Prop “H” will stop those lights from being installed.
Vote YES on “H” - Save the Dark Skies for all of us
today and for future generations.
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance
Friends of Lands End
SF Ocean Edge
Amy Meyer, People for a Golden Gate National
Recreation Area*
Tom Kellogg, Environmental Management
Professional
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Martin Stidham, 2. Esther A. Melvin, 3. Donald
Stidham.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
FORMER PLANNERS AND SUPERVISORS SUPPORT
PROPOSITION H
Protect Golden Gate Park and the planning process vote YES on H.
The Golden Gate Park Master Plan and the Western
Shoreline Area Plan were carefully crafted to protect
the naturalistic beauty of the western end of Golden
Gate Park and Ocean Beach.
However, the proposed Beach Chalet Soccer Fields
project would allow over 7 acres of artificial turf and
150,000 watts of sports lighting in Golden Gate Park,
right next to Ocean Beach. It would convert the one
area of the park that allows us to connect to nature
and escape from the hectic urban environment into a
major sports stadium.
Prop. “H” will keep artificial turf and sports lighting
out of the western end of Golden Gate Park.
To respect Golden Gate Park and the planning process
designed to protect it, vote YES on “H” and NO on “I”.
Retired Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp, former
California State Senator, former SF Supervisor*
Aaron Peskin, former President, SF Board of
Supervisors*
38-EN-N14-CP142
John Bardis, former SF Supervisor and former
President, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods*
Dennis Antenore, former SF Planning Commissioner*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Martin Stidham, 2. Esther A. Melvin, 3. Donald
Stidham.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Richmond District Community Organizations Say YES
on Prop H
Golden Gate Park is “an open space preserve . . . to
experience beauty, tranquility, recreation, and relief
from urban pressures.” (1998 Master Plan) Like the
Polo Field, the Beach Chalet soccer fields should
remain natural grass, without night lighting, preserving the tranquility of the western end of the Park that a
stadium with night lights would destroy.
Vote YES on Prop H and NO on Prop I
Coalition to Save Ocean Beach
Friends of Lands End
Friends of Sutro Heights Park
Brenda Altman, Board Member, Planning Association
for the Richmond (“PAR”)*
Fred Altschuler, Board Member, PAR*
Robert Fries, Board Member, PAR*
Sharon Gadberry, Board Member, PAR*
Jason Jungreis, Board Member, PAR*
Cheryl Schultz, Board Member, PAR*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Martin Stidham, 2. Donald Stidham, 3. Esther
A. Melvin.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Grass: Loved by Kids, Approved by Parents
We soccer parents and coaches know real grass in
Golden Gate Park is better for our kids, and gives
them more play time. Our kids are being used by
developers as a bogus excuse to privatize Golden
Gate Park for out-of-town adult players.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP143
Kids have no more injuries on properly maintained
grass fields costing $1M, than on plastic turf, costing
$14M. The US Environmental Protection Agency has
called into question the safety of kids being exposed
to the carcinogens in shredded waste tires. European
soccer leagues banned it.
Artificial turf must be replaced regularly for $6M. As
acknowledged by the private developer, there is little
money in San Francisco’s budget for park maintenance
-- the partnership does not include funding for longterm repairs and upkeep. So in 8 years or less the artificial turf fields will fail and be shutdown, as happened
in New York City.
Stadium lights are for adults and will add no play time
for kids. Of the 1270 San Francisco youth soccer
league games last year, 1250 were played between
8:00am and 4:30pm, with only 20 starting between
5:15pm and 5:30pm.
Real Grass for Real Kids -Vote YES on H and NO on I
Soccer Parents & Coaches for Grass Fields in Golden
Gate Park
Kathleen McCowin, President and Soccer Mom
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Kathleen McCowin.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
RPD Gardeners say “YES on H”
RPD has purposely deferred routine maintenance on
the Beach Chalet Soccer Fields. This planned deterioration was due to improper funding, inadequate staffing,
and mismanagement.
Covering seven acres of natural grass with artificial
turf increases the City’s carbon footprint, contaminates
water that is used to clean the soccer fields, and the
artificial turf is considered toxic waste when replaced.
Paid Arguments – Proposition H
143
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Sunset District Neighborhood Coalition.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT PUTTING
ARTIFICIAL TURF AND STADIUM LIGHTING IN
GOLDEN GATE PARK NEXT TO OCEAN BEACH
ARTIFICIAL TURF IN GOLDEN GATE PARK DOES NOT
SAVE WATER - IT COSTS WATER:
The grass at Beach Chalet needs one-quarter the irrigation that RPD has claimed.
Currently, the irrigation water for the Beach Chalet
fields is pumped from the aquifer under the park and
returns to the aquifer after the real grass is irrigated.
With artificial turf, clean rainwater that now replenishes the aquifer will be sent to the sewage plant, and
YOU will pay for processing it.
Artificial turf must be rinsed weekly to prevent bacterial build-up -- that water usage is not included in RPD
calculations.
LOST CARBON SEQUESTRATION:
Living grass sequesters carbon. Artificial turf does not.
It would take over 7,000 trees grown for 10 years to
offset the adverse environmental impact of the artificial turf fields.
STADIUM LIGHTING:
The stadium lighting will damage the environment
both in the Park, at Ocean Beach, and in the surrounding area. Learn more at “Slideshare artificial lighting
longcore.”
HABITAT LOSS:
The artificial turf will destroy the habitat for over 60
species of birds and for other wildlife.
STOP THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION.
Yes on H!
VOTE YES ON H.
Coalition of Retired SFRPD Gardeners
Learn the truth on our website
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Douglas Martino, Joan Vellutini, Dennis O’Rourke,
Kevin Shea.
SF Ocean Edge
SF Green Party
Richmond Community Association
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Greg Miller.
YES ON H !
REAL GRASS FOR HEALTHY KIDS and NO NIGHT
STADIUM LIGHTS
Sunset District Neighborhood Coalition
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
144
Paid Arguments – Proposition H
38-EN-N14-CP144
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Beach and disrupting bird flight.
OCEAN BEACH IS FOR SURFING, NOT TURFING!
Why spoil the naturalistic character of western Golden
Gate Park in exchange for money from teams that
come from outside the City?
Across the street from Kelly’s Cove is the wrong place
for a sports stadium. And 60 foot stadium lights
glaring until 10:00pm 365 days a year would ruin our
beach bonfires under the stars.
Save our beach!
Vote YES on H and NO on I !
Kelly’s Cove Boarders
Garrett Moss, President
Alan Ostreicher
Cheri Hawkins
Maxine Levet
Vinita Sriniva-Levet
Wendy Compagno
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Garrett Moss.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Concerned Mothers say - Yes on H!
Golden Gate Park is continually under attack to accommodate more special interests ultimately at the
demise of its parkland.
Golden Gate Park is not an amusement park or athletic
complex. It is the horticultural jewel of San Francisco
designed for all to enjoy remarkable parkland.
Installing noxious artificial turf and egregious light
standards in an area designated to be woodsy with
habitat is not only inappropriate but shameful.
Yes on H
Concerned Mothers to Protect Golden Gate Park
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Shawna McGrew.
Vote YES on H. Vote No on I, the City’s measure.
SPEAK
Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: SPEAK - Sunset-Parkside Education and Action
Committee.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
EPA RETRACTS SAFETY ASSURANCES
We parents, grandparents, teachers, and childcare
advocates support giving our children high quality recreational facilities. But, we want to warn our fellow
voters not to be fooled by the for-profit industry of
recycled tires used in artificial turf! In December of last
year, the US Environmental Protection Agency retracted its prior safety assurances and posted new cautions
concerning unexplored chemical exposure to more
than 30 compounds found in synthetic shredded tire
turf including arsenic, lead, cobalt, mercury, and trichloroethylene.
Don’t risk our children’s health and our environment
with misguided public policy.
Supported by Careth Reid, retired director Whitney
Young Child Development Center - BVHP
YES ON H NO ON I
Lynne Beeson, retired City employee and founding
Director of Mayor’s Office of Childcare
Lotus Yee Fong, grandmother of a 9 year old soccer
player, Executive Committee of SF Sierra Club
Laura Chin Smoot, retired City science teacher, parent
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Lynne Beeson, Lotus Yee Fong, Careth Reid, Laura
Chin Smoot.
YES on H !
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Natural Grass! No Stadium Lighting!
We strongly support kids playing soccer on natural
grass fields, not on toxic turf that washes chemicals
into the aquifer.
We strongly support kids playing soccer. We oppose
chemically unsafe artificial turf fields that would harm
children and adult players as well.
The City opposes natural grass and wants far-reaching
stadium lighting that would be on until 10:00pm every
night of the year, ruining dark skies at nearby Ocean
Removing this turf every 8 years is costly and requires
special handling.
Stadium lighting will affect bird navigation, wildlife
and the enjoyment of dark skies at Ocean Beach.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Paid Arguments – Proposition H
38-EN-N14-CP145
145
YES on “H”. Vote NO on “I”.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
San Francisco Tomorrow
San Franciscans say Protect Golden Gate Park and all
of our parks!
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tomorrow.
VOTE YES ON H!
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
YES on H !
SAVE THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF THE BEACH
CHALET FIELDS!
San Francisco Latino Democratic Club
Richmond Community Association
The Beach Chalet project is so destructive of the
western end of Golden Gate Park that it will remove
that part of the Park from the National Register of
Historic Places.
Rick Hauptman:
North Mission Neighbors - President*
Noe Valley Democratic Club - past President*
Harvey Milk Democratic Club - past Vice-President*
Golden Gate Park was designed to provide recreation
within the framework of a naturalistic landscape with
forests, meadows and lakes. Naturalistic means that
the landscape appears as if nature put it there.
Miriam Pinchuk:
Medical Editor
D5 Action, member*
Over 7 acres of artificial turf are not naturalistic!
Over 150,000 watts of stadium lighting on 60 foot
poles are not naturalistic!
The Beach Chalet fields can be renovated with real
grass and no sports lighting, and provide hours of
play for children without destroying the character of
the Park. Restrooms can still be renovated. ADA paths
can still be added.
Money already exists for alternatives to provide more
hours of play for children while protecting the landscape of Golden Gate Park for EVERYONE - -kids,
parents, hikers, bikers, strollers, picnickers - old and
young, rich and poor.
SAVE GOLDEN GATE PARK - FOR EVERYONE!
YES on H.
Sue Englander, SF historian
Katherine Howard, ASLA SPUR Sustainable Development Committee, Past Chair
(4 years)
Ocean Beach Master Plan, PAC
Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority, CAC
UC Berkeley Extension, Past Lecturer, Landscape
History
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Terry Rolleri, Homeowner
Shawna McGrew:
SF Recreation and Park Department, Supervisor, 37
years, retired*
Barbara Liu Mcdowell:
Soccer mom, Glens Soccer*
George Wooding
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods - Vice
President
Soccer dad, coach, and team sponsor
Westside Observer - Columnist*
Nancy Wuerfel:
Open Space Committee of the Coalition for San
Francisco Neighborhoods, Co-Chair
PROSAC (Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory
Committee), 9-year Member*
Parkside 4 Kids, to support building the Dianne
Feinstein Elementary School while preserving the
playground! Founder & President
SPEAK (Sunset Parkside Education and Action
Committee), Past Vice President
Katherine Howard, American Society of Landscape
Architects*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Miriam Pinchuk, Katherine Howard.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Greg Miller.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
146
Paid Arguments – Proposition H
38-EN-N14-CP146
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition H
VOTE YES ON H FOR NATURE (REAL GRASS), FOR
CHILDREN’S FUTURE HEALTH, AGAINST TOXIC
LEGACY OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AND
WILDLIFE DEATH FROM ARTIFICIAL TURF.
RESTORE SOCCER FIELDS - NO ON H
DENISE D’ANNE*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: DENISE D’ANNE.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition H
New York and Los Angeles are protecting their children
and their environment by saying “no” to using toxic
artificial turf. Yet, San Francisco wants to cover 7 acres
of Golden Gate Park with tire-crumb turf that exceeds
the Bay Area Air Quality Acute Hazard Index threshold
by over 200%.
City officials admit that the Beach Chalet project’s
stadium lighting, grandstands, increased roads and
traffic will have a permanent negative impact on the
beautiful natural setting of Golden Gate Park AND
Ocean Beach. In a decade, the artificial turf will go to
landfill and millions of dollars will be needed for
replacement fields.
We can fix Golden Gate Park’s soccer fields with new,
green technology solving any maintenance problems
while keeping our kids safe and continuing to provide
habitat for birds. If other cities can do it, so can San
Francisco. We don’t have to destroy a jewel of San
Francisco.
There is only one Golden Gate Park. Don’t let them
turn it into rubber, steel and asphalt.
Vote Yes on Proposition H
Vote No of Proposition I
Sierra Club
Golden Gate Audubon Society
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Sierra Club.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition H
The Beach Chalet soccer fields are in poor condition over-use, outdated drainage, lacking basic park amenities.
Our growing population of kids needs parks where
they can be active. A partnership between the city and
local donors will restore these fields, giving kids a safe
place to play year-round.
Proposition H stops the project, preventing kids from
enjoying what should be premier space for youth
soccer.
Support safe recreation! Vote NO ON H.
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and our 1,500
local business
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition H
San Francisco Democratic Party Opposes Prop H
Prop H limits the ability of kids from across the city to
play in Golden Gate Park.
Vote No on H.
Prop H keeps athletic fields closed during the evening
when many kids and their parents have time to play
and get exercise together. Most families don’t have
the option of enjoying the park during a weekday
when the sports fields are empty and can’t play at
night, even on a dedicated sports field, because there
are no field lights. Prop. H will make this problem
even worse permanently banning nighttime athletics
in western Golden Gate Park.
Prop H will prevent other improvements to the athletic
fields in Golden Gate Park that have already been
approved the City and the California Coastal
Commission, including, new walking paths, a viewing
plaza so spectators can enjoy games, seating and
picnic tables, barbeques, bike parking, a small playground, restored bathrooms, and sports fields that are
accessible to people with disabilities.
Right now the fields are closed to play more than half
the time, denying 1,000 kids from playing sports each
year. Prop H will ensure they stay closed. That’s just
wrong.
The San Francisco Democratic Party urges you to vote
No on Prop H.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP147
Paid Arguments – Proposition H
147
Our parks should be open and accessible to all San
Franciscans, not just a select few.
setting, getting outdoors is crucial to everyone’s health
and welfare.
San Francisco Democratic Party
Whether you are a senior who practices Tai Chi at your
local park in the morning or walks trails with friends,
these recreational areas are directly related to your
quality of life.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition H
No on Prop H - Stop Wasting Water
Vote No on H to help San Francisco conserve water
during this drought and for years to come
By mandating grass athletic fields in this area of
Golden Gate Park, Proposition H will stop the city from
saving an estimated 5,700,000 gallons of water each
year.
California is in one of its worst droughts ever.
Converting a small number of athletic fields in Golden
Gate Park to artificial turf will save water while giving
our kids more playing time.
Renovating these dilapidated grass athletic fields
would save our precious and increasingly scarce
drinking water from being used to water landscape.
Environmental and public health experts have determined that runoff will not degrade our water quality or
adversely affect our water source.
As we face extreme drought conditions...and likely
more to come with climate change, our city must do
everything it can to conserve water.
From a 4 year old playing in sandbox, to an 8 year old
playing on his or her first soccer team, to a 16 year old
running cross country, our playgrounds, athletic fields
and trails are crucial to their development and good
health.
But Prop H severely restricts people’s ability to use our
recreational facilities by blocking approvals that will
expand access to Golden Gate Park athletic fields,
improve access for people with disabilities and
provide more welcoming spaces for families to bbq,
play and watch soccer games.
We urge you to oppose limits on San Franciscans use
of Golden Gate Park by voting NO on Prop H.
Former Assemblywoman Fiona Ma
Assessor Carmen Chu*
Supervisor David Chiu
Supervisor Eric Mar*
Supervisor Katy Tang
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Join me in voting No on Proposition H.
Susan Leal
Former General Manager, San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Susan Leal.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition H
As elected leaders in San Francisco, improving quality
of life for all residents is our top priority. That is why
we are opposing Prop H.
Essential to that quality of life is people’s ability to
fully access and enjoy our parks, playgrounds, athletic
fields and walking trails. Since we all live in an urban
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP149
I
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition I
149
Renovation of Playgrounds,
Walking Trails, and Athletic Fields
Shall the City allow renovations to children’s playgrounds, walking trails
and athletic fields if such renovations, which could include installing
artificial turf or nighttime lighting on athletic fields, would double their
anticipated usage and if an environmental impact report has been certified?
YES
NO
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
Controller’s Statement on “I”
The Way It Is Now: The City’s Recreation and Park
Department operates and maintains many of the public parks, walking trails and athletic fields in the City.
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition I:
The Proposal: Proposition I would amend the Park
Code so that the City shall allow renovations to any
children’s playground, walking trail or athletic field if
the renovation satisfies the following conditions:
• the Recreation and Park Department has determined that the renovation would double the
public’s use; and
• an environmental impact report has been certified
if required by law.
This ordinance would apply to children’s playgrounds,
walking trails and athletic fields that have already satisfied these conditions.
Renovations could include installing artificial turf or
nighttime lighting on athletic fields.
The Board of Supervisors could by a two-thirds’ vote
amend this ordinance without voter approval.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to
amend the Park Code so that the City shall allow renovations to children’s playgrounds, walking trails and
athletic fields if such renovation would double their
anticipated usage and if an environmental impact
report has been certified. These renovations could
include installing artificial turf or nighttime lighting on
athletic fields.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
to make these changes to the Park Code.
Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the
voters, in my opinion, it would not, in and of itself
affect, the cost of government.
The proposed ordinance provides that renovations to
playgrounds, trails and fields can proceed if increased
usage to the relevant facilities is projected and a certified Environmental Impact Report is in place. The City
pays for renovations to playgrounds, trails and fields
through its park bond programs and other funding
sources which are approved through the budgetary
and fiscal provisions of the Charter. These processes
would not be substantially affected by the ordinance.
How “I” Got on the Ballot
On June 17, 2014, the Department of Elections received
a proposed ordinance signed by the following
Supervisors: Breed, Chiu, Farrell, Mar, Tang, Wiener,
Yee.
The City Elections Code allows four or more
Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot in this
manner.
Propositions H and I concern the same subject
matter. If both measures are adopted by the voters, and if there is a conflict between provisions of
the two measures, then some or all of the measure
approved by fewer votes would not go into effect.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
150
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition I
38-EN-N14-CP150
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition I
Yes on I – Expand Recreation in City Parks
Proposition I will get more people into San Francisco
parks to play, walk and exercise. Please join me in voting Yes on I.
During the past 15 years, San Francisco has recreated
our park system. As a City, we have invested in new
playgrounds and recreation centers. We have rebuilt
playgrounds, created skate parks, added dog play
areas, repaired recreation centers, renovated sports
fields and reopened park bathrooms. These efforts
have been tremendously successful and, today, more
than 400,000 people visit our parks each week – more
than any time in our city’s history.
Still, some of San Francisco’s most popular park facilities remain out-of-date, unsafe and under used. Our
older playgrounds sit empty and idle while our new
playgrounds are bustling with children. We don’t have
enough sports fields for everyone who wants to play
and children are turned away. Many of our walking
trails remain hidden beneath overgrowth and inaccessible to the public.
We can do better. Proposition I is a simple solution to
restore, improve and expand play in our parks.
Proposition I ensures that playground, athletic field
and walking trail renovations will proceed if an environmental impact report documents that the project
will double the public’s use of that facility. This measure will get more San Franciscans into our park to
recreate, relax and unwind.
Prop I will not cost the city a dime and does not limit
one’s ability to question, appeal or offer improvements
to proposed projects. The measure just prevents new
laws from being passed that would stop the renovation of certain playgrounds, athletic fields and walking
trails after they have been approved.
Proposition I is smart planning for our city’s health and
future.
Vote Yes on Proposition I. Thank you.
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition I
Senator Feinstein admits that “I” would prevent passing new laws that would stop athletic field renovations. But “I” is so poorly drafted that it is unclear
which citizen rights will be curtailed -- Will we lose the
right of voter initiatives? The uncertainty could result
in years of costly legal battles.
Notice that “I” provides no new funding for these renovations.
We support renovating playing fields for our children.
In Golden Gate Park we should do this with real grass.
Children need sports, but they also need to interact
with nature.
If “I” is passed, the Recreation and Park Department
will pave over 7 acres of natural grass fields in Golden
Gate Park and light up the area next to Ocean Beach
with 150,000 watts of stadium lighting until 10:00 pm
every night. This will create a disastrous precedent for
paving and floodlighting our remaining parklands.
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Friends of Lands End
Friends of Sutro Heights Park
San Francisco Tomorrow
Richmond Community Association
SPEAK
Sunset District Neighborhood Coalition
Educators for Photosynthesis
Concerned Mothers to Protect Golden Gate Park
Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility
Coalition of Retired SFRPD Gardeners
Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance
Kelly’s Cove Boarders
SF Ocean Edge
Soccer Parents and Coaches for Grass Fields in Golden
Gate Park
TakeBackOurParks.org
Greg Miller
How will “I” affect the future of your neighborhood
park?
VOTE NO on “I” and YES on “H.”
Sierra Club
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP151
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition I
151
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition I
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION I
At first glance, “I” appears to be nothing more than a
thinly disguised “poison pill” designed to confuse voters and defeat Proposition “H.”
BUT WHAT DOES “I” REALLY DO?
“I” states that it “authorizes renovation” of parks. But
the San Francisco Charter already grants broad powers to the Recreation and Park Commission to approve
projects. These extensive powers are subject to a limited set of checks and balances, one of which is the
ballot initiative process.
However, “I” implements a procedural trigger -- if the
Recreation and Park Department forecasts that a project would double the usage of fields, trails, or playgrounds, and if that estimate is cited in a Certified EIR,
then the “... the City shall allow ...” the renovations. In
a legal context, the word “shall” generally means a
compulsion to perform an act.
THEREFORE, IF THE TRIGGER CONDITIONS ARE MET,
THE CITY MAY BE LEGALLY COMPELLED TO
AUTHORIZE A PROJECT WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
Would “I” deny the Recreation and Park Commission
the discretion to consider other City goals and values
before approving a project? Does “I” seek to curtail
the checks and balances bestowed by the City Charter
on the Board of Supervisors and the citizens? Would
“I” prohibit future Voter-initiated ballot Initiatives? If
you think so: VOTE NO ON I.
If you want to keep artificial turf and night sports lighting out of the west end of Golden Gate Park, VOTE NO
ON I.
If you want to prevent a vaguely-described power grab
that may threaten any park in the City, VOTE NO ON I.
If you want the laws of our City to be written with clarity and candor, VOTE NO ON I.
Greg Miller*
Bank Vice President (Retired)
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition I
Proposition I will increase use of our city’s open space,
athletic fields and playgrounds, providing much
needed access to outdoor recreation for every San
Franciscan.
Our parks, playground, walking trails and athletic
fields are so popular that many have become overwhelmed with people who want to enjoy them. It’s a
good problem that our recreational facilities are so
popular, and one that Proposition I helps address by
expanding access so everyone can enjoy our parks.
Proposition I does not limit one’s ability to question,
appeal or offer improvements to proposed projects.
Proposition I helps create more access to recreation
and open space for kids and families from every
neighborhood.
I ask you to join me in voting Yes on Proposition I.
Mayor Edwin M. Lee*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Proposition I is a simple solution to restore, improve
and expand play in our parks, playgrounds, walking
trails and athletic fields.
Proposition I helps ease overcrowding and ensures no
child is turned away from a playground or athletic
field due to capacity issues. We need to be encouraging kids to get out and play, not turning them away
because facilities are overwhelmed.
Proposition I is straightforward. It ensures that playground, athletic field and walking trail renovations will
proceed if an environmental impact report documents
that the project will double the public’s use of that
facility.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
152
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
KIDS NEED TO PLAY - YES ON I
Studies show San Francisco doesn’t have enough
parks and athletic fields. Many need renovation to be
usable, safe and fun.
When outdoor recreation spaces are improved they
get more use, keeping residents healthy, encouraging
families to stay in the city.
Proposition I allows artificial turf and lighting to renovate parks if the improvements significantly increase
use and are environmentally approved. Better parks
and usable fields year-round improve city life for all of
us.
Improve our parks - VOTE YES ON I.
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and our 1,500
local businesses.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Prop. I is Good For Families
Proposition I will get more city residents visiting and
playing in our parks, especially local kids. This
measure will ensure that local sports fields are safe
and reliable and help make San Francisco a city where
families can thrive.
San Francisco doesn’t have enough sports fields for all
the children who want to participate. Our oldest playgrounds sit nearly empty while our newest playgrounds are over-flowing with kids. Many of our
walking trails are overgrown and lead to nowhere.
These are some of our most important and more overwhelmed recreation facilities and deserve to be
improved so more people can enjoy them.
Prop I expands recreation in our parks by ensuring
that playgrounds, athletic fields and walking trail renovations will proceed if they are found to double the
public’s use and have been thoroughly reviewed in an
environmental impact report. The measure does not in
any way curtail the approval or appeals process but
creates more certainty so these critical projects can
proceed.
Please vote Yes on Prop I and support San Francisco
parks, playgrounds, athletic field and walking trails.
San Francisco Parent Pac
38-EN-N14-CP152
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Yes on I – City Parks Deserve Our Help
Proposition I will increase use of San Francisco’s most
popular, most requested and most overwhelmed park
facilities, namely playgrounds, athletic fields and
walking trails.
Vote Yes on Prop. I.
For the past fifteen years, San Francisco voters have
approved bonds and supported efforts to repair,
restore and modernize our park system. That support
has resulted in beautiful new park features and more
people using our parks than ever before. Despite these
efforts, our most popular facilities – playgrounds, athletic fields and walking trails – remain underutilized
due to outdated, unsafe features and limited public
access.
Prop. I will ensure that park projects that have completed an Environmental Impact Report and are found
to double use will be allowed to proceed once they are
approved and any appeals complete. The measure
does not shortcut the process or prevent project
appeals or court challenges but will guarantee that
new laws are not enacted after the fact to try to stop
or delay a critical park project.
As a city, we should do everything we can to get more
San Franciscans into our parks to exercise and relax. It
is not financially possible to buy enough parkland to
meet our need. San Francisco has to get more use out
of what we already have. This ballot measure is
another good step in that direction.
Please join us in voting Yes on Prop. I.
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
London Breed*
Malia Cohen*
David Chiu
Mark Farrell
Eric Mar
Katy Tang*
Scott Wiener*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP153
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Vote Yes on Prop. I – City Parks Deserve Our Care
Please join us in voting Yes on I to protect our parks.
San Francisco’s public lands provide a critical function
for our city. In this urban environment, natural spaces
are essential to our physical and mental health. The
San Francisco Parks Alliance is committed to making
sure our parks and open spaces are safe, fun and welcoming to all. Prop. I will help the city meet these
goals.
While all San Franciscans can agree that parks are
vital to our city, many park features are unclean, dangerous, or inaccessible and in desperate need of renovation. Proposition I will help ensure that these facilities can be repaired, improved and enjoyed by all for
years to come. It will allow the city to move forward
with approved park renovation projects that better
playgrounds, walking trails and athletic fields so that
more people can use these them. Our parks need this
support for the city to protect the future of our natural
areas.
Take pride in your parks, vote Yes on Proposition I.
San Francisco Parks Alliance
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
The San Francisco Democratic Party Supports
Proposition I
Proposition I will help ensure that our city’s athletic
fields, playgrounds and walking trails are accessible to
everyone in our city, no matter where they live.
Right now, many San Francisco kids who want to play
soccer, Frisbee, or catch can’t get onto sports fields
because they are overcrowded and overbooked. Each
weekday in the Fall and Spring, more than 4,000 city
kids cram onto park athletic fields to play afterschool.
As the athletic fields quickly fill up, Recreation and
Parks tries to accommodate by scheduling practices
on nearly any flat grassy space in city parks, but there
still isn’t enough room and some are left out.
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
153
away because there isn’t enough athletic field space.
This is simply unfair and, as a city, there’s something
we can to fix it. We can Vote Yes on Proposition I.
As a community we need to repair and improve our
outdoor recreational areas to get more San
Franciscans of all ages into our parks to play and exercise. That’s exactly what this measure will accomplish.
Proposition I is sensible planning that promotes democratic ideals of access to public recreational facilities
for San Franciscans from every walk of life. It deserves
our support.
Join the San Francisco Democratic Party in Voting Yes
on Proposition I!
San Francisco Democratic Party
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Join San Francisco Labor Unions In Supporting Prop I
Prop I will ensure the renovation of playgrounds and
athletic fields across the City, and increase outdoor
recreation opportunities for local kids and adults. As
the gardeners and staff maintaining San Francisco’s
parks, we strongly support Prop. I.
Prop I will also provide good-paying jobs for the men
and women of labor who build safer playgrounds in
our parks, take care of our athletic fields and ensure
our recreation facilities are clean and structurally
sound.
Prop I is smart planning that will improve and expand
outdoor recreation, help keep families in San
Francisco and keep the men and women working in
our parks doing what they do best - maintaining,
repairing and rebuilding our playgrounds and athletic
fields.
Vote Yes on Prop. I.
Laborers Local 261
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Youth sports leagues fill up six months before the first
day of practice and, inevitably, children are turned
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
154
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Prop. I Will Keep SF Kids Healthy and Smart
As an educator, I know the importance of exercise for
kids. I see it every day. Healthy, active children are
better prepared to learn, more interested in school and
more attentive in the classroom. Outdoor sports and
activities help children develop social skills, build
muscle and coordination, release stress and, most
important, have fun.
But where are San Francisco children to play if all the
sports fields are full, the playgrounds are crowded and
the open spaces are overgrown? Not a single public
San Francisco junior high school has an athletic field
but, really, every grade is impacted by the scarcity of
outdoor recreation facilities.
38-EN-N14-CP154
Proposition I helps ease that demand by ensuring that
the City can move forward with renovations to park
athletics fields, playgrounds and walking trails that
have already been approved, helping provide enough
open space for everyone to enjoy when and where
they want to.
I respectfully ask you to vote Yes on Prop. I.
Thank you.
Anni Chung, President & CEO, Self-Help for the
Elderly*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
The good news is that we can address this issue by
voting Yes on Prop. I.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Prop. I will create more opportunities for kids to play in
our parks and we believe that is good for those kids,
their studies and their future. Please vote Yes on I.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Don Collins*
Commissioner of Athletics
San Francisco Unified School District
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Prop I Will Keep Seniors Healthy
For many seniors in Chinatown, Visitacion Valley, the
Mission, South of Market and other densely populated
areas in San Francisco, our parks, playgrounds and
sports fields are the only place they can get fresh air,
exercise and socialize.
Seniors use our local parks for morning Tai Chi, to play
chess and take dance lessons, or even to just walk
laps around ball fields with friends. Unfortunately,
with so many people wanting to use these same park
features simultaneously, many of these facilities get
overused and worn-down, creating unsafe conditions,
competition for space, and limited public access.
That’s not good for seniors or our city.
Prop. I = 1,000 More Kids Playing Sports in San
Francisco
For several years, SF Recreation and Parks has renovated city sports fields to expand access and increase
use. In the past two years alone, 1,000 additional children are playing sports in the city due to these field
renovations.
Many more would like to play, but can’t. Every soccer,
baseball, softball and lacrosse league in the city has
faced the same problem and had to do the same terrible thing – turn a child away from sports due to a lack
of athletic fields. Prop. I will ensure that local kids can
participate in youth sports.
Prop. I allows SF Recreation and Parks to renovate city
sports fields following ample opportunity for public
input and the thorough review of all appropriate local
and state agencies. Prop I helps to overcome costly
last-minute obstructions placed by a handful of people
who oppose using the parks for children’s sports.
For every field renovation, about 1,000 more city kids
are able to play ball.
The San Francisco Youth Soccer League is the de facto
sports program for our schools. Parents meet on the
sidelines, spawning the friendships from which spring
active PTAs and rich community around the schools.
Many San Francisco families are moving out of the
city for many different reasons, including the lack of
recreational physical activity opportunities for their
children. Prop. I gives families a reason to stay.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP155
It’s that simple. We urge you to vote Yes on I.
San Francisco Youth Soccer League
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. William Fisher, 2. Roert Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Vote Yes on I for More Walking Trails
San Francisco is a city that walks. With weather that
allows us to get outside year-round to visit our many
neighborhoods, explore our many parks, and discover
the beautiful views and secret gardens in our open
spaces. Prop. I will help expand and improve the park
walking trails that carry us to these breathtaking vistas
and hidden gems. We urge you to vote yes on I.
In a crowded city, our neighborhood parks offer residents the closest connection to nature, and residents
of every age, physical ability and background take
advantage of these facilities. Unfortunately, many of
our trails are left overgrown and unmaintained, limiting the ability of many San Franciscans to access safe
and walkable areas for recreation.
Proposition I would fix this, allowing the city to renovate approved walking trails proven to double future
use of the designated route. This is an essential step
for an urban city like ours to make the most out of our
limited natural areas.
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
155
city athletic fields due to nighttime closures and
unsafe field conditions.
For many kids who live in dense urban environments,
our Recreation and Park facilities are their only opportunity to play outdoors safely. Proposition I helps
ensure no child is turned away from a playground or
athletic field due to capacity issues.
Proposition I ensures that playground, athletic field
and walking trail renovations will proceed if an environmental impact report documents that the project
will double the public’s use of that facility, opening up
space for all kids and their families across the city to
enjoy.
We urge you to vote Yes on Prop I. Prop I Let’s Kids
Play!
Mark Buell, President, Recreation and park
Commission*
Allan Low, Vice President, Recreation and Park
Commission*
Tom Harrison, Member, Recreation and Park
Commission*
Meagan Levitan, Member, Recreation and Park
Commission*
Eric McDonnell, Member, Recreation and Park
Commission*
Phil Ginsburg, General Manager, Recreation and Park
Commission*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
We are lucky that we do not have to leave the city for a
good walk, we just need to know how to find the trail.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
Vote Yes on I and go take a hike!
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Trust for Public Land
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Let’s Get 1,000 New Kids Playing!
As Recreation and Park Commissioners we strongly
support Proposition I to increase use of our city’s open
space, athletic fields and playgrounds.
As Commissioners we are responsible for more 220
parks, playgrounds and open spaces in our City. The
demand on these outdoor spaces can be overwhelming, with thousands of kids currently unable to play on
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Yes on I – Fix City Playgrounds
As moms, we spend a lot of time in playgrounds.
Unfortunately, in San Francisco, not all playgrounds
are equal. While the city has done a wonderful job
installing new playgrounds in some parks, others
haven’t been so fortunate.
Even if you haven’t climbed onto a see-saw in years,
you’ve seen the new playgrounds around town. They
are bright and busy, filled with a mix of familiar slides
and swings and newer, more modern equipment
bearing some resemblance to modern art sculptures.
Other playgrounds are dark and often empty, wooden
log structures soaked in creosote (like older railroad
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
156
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
ties) and about as exciting to kids as making their
beds.
We’re not going to bore you by telling you how hard it
can be to raise a family in San Francisco. Heck, it’s
expensive to live here and there will always be challenges living in a big city.
But our kids don’t know that. They know other things.
They know that their friends come in all colors and
cultures. They know how to compost, recycle and
reuse. They know how to ride the bus, eat a burrito,
order dim sum and walk up hills while chatting.
They also know that some city playgrounds are
awesome and some are…less so. It doesn’t have to be
this way.
We are asking you to vote yes on Prop. I so that our
kids, your kids, the city’s kids have better places to
play. Thank you.
38-EN-N14-CP156
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
San Francisco’s neighborhoods OPPOSE Prop I!
Prop I will not help our kids or our parks.
Prop I:
• wipes out our citizens’ right to appeal!
• is a power grab by Rec & Park over all of our parks.
Prop I’s Three Strikes:
Strike 1: Prop I is a waste of voter time — the city
charter already authorizes Rec & Park to renovate our
parks
Strike 2: Prop I provides no new funding to renovate
our parks.
Strike 3: Prop I gives Rec & Park total power to decide
which parks will be renovated and how.** This blatant
power grab eliminates public input to stop any unsuitable, mismatched project in our parks! **
Sandhya Adnepos
Amber Rosenberg
Lynda Porter
Beatrice Dong
Sarah Quigley
Prop I strikes O U T …for kids, for Golden Gate Park
and for neighborhoods having control over our city
parks.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Let SF Kids Play Committee.
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Established 1972.
45 neighborhood organizations.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Robert Fisher, 2. William Fisher, 3. John Fisher.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition I
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
Voter beware! Read Proposition I carefully! It doesn’t
do what it claims. The City already has the power to
renovate with artificial turf and lighting, witness the
project opposed by Proposition H.
Proposition I is a “poison pill,” put on the ballot to
counter Proposition H. If Prop I passes with more
votes that Prop H, Prop H will be nullified. This is dirty
politics at its worst.
Vote NO on Proposition I!
John Odell
Former Chair
Ballot Simplification Committee*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Vote NO on Prop I!
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods —
CSFN.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
Science teachers say the facts point to NO on I !
Tom Dallman
Michael Fox
Judy Gerber*
Ellen Koivisto*
Kate Magary
Mark Rowley
Woodrow Smith*
Diana Theriault
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Martin Stidham, 2. Esther A. Melvin, 3. Donald
Stidham.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: John Odell.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP157
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
157
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
National Park Dark Sky supporters and astronomers
say, “Vote NO on I. “ PROTECT OUR STARRY SKIES
FOR NOW AND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Proposition I represents typical City Hall subversion of
citizen participation in governing themselves. After
seeing Proposition H qualify with over 15,000 voter
signatures not financed by some “angel,” five cunning
supervisors submitted a vague ordinance to trump
Prop. H and impose their bureaucratic will upon selfless everyday residents.
In 2006 the National Park Service adopted a policy to
preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural
darkness in our national parks. A very large dark area
is important for this policy to be effective.
Our San Francisco coast has dark skies over its national park lands from the Presidio to Lands End, Sutro
Heights, Ocean Beach and Fort Funston. Birds of the
Pacific Flyway need these dark skies. Also this is
where astronomers and families can bring their telescopes to view the starry night sky.
Now our coastal dark skies are being threatened by
the Beach Chalet project, which plans to install
150,000 watts of sports lighting on 60 foot poles in
western Golden Gate Park, next to the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area.
This project will cut a huge hole in our dark sky.
Lighting experts say that a significant proportion of
that light would be reflected off the fields into the
now-dark sky, creating a luminous dome of bright,
white light. These lights would be on until 10:00 pm
every night of the year!
These sports lights would be ecologically destructive
and have great negative impact on our National Park,
on birds who travel our coast and on families that
come to the west end of San Francisco to see the
stars.
Proposition I overrides the Golden Gate Park Master
Plan and duly adopted San Francisco General Plan.
Proposition I degrades our environment and Golden
Gate Park history and purpose by hiding behind children. Proposition I is malignant to democracy - and
children.
Defeat “I”. Vote NO!
Good Government Committee
Retired Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp, Chairman
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Greg Miller.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
Community Organizations Oppose Proposition I
1. Supporters shamelessly manipulate children: almost
all increased playing time for adults.
2. Costs $10,000,000 (plus $2,000,000 every 8 years):
improved grass fields cost $2,000,000.
3. Tons of ground-up tires will leach toxins into drinking water.
Prop I is also a poison pill, that will make Prop H
invalid!
4. Airborne lead and carbon dust correlated to cancer
increase.
Vote NO on “I.” Save the Dark Skies for all of us today
and for future generations.
5. Increased knee injuries and staph infections.
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance
Friends of Lands End
SF Ocean Edge
Amy Meyer, People for a Golden Gate National
Recreation Area*
7. Inferior play: ball skids, no professionals use turf.
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Martin Stidham, 2. Esther A. Melvin, 3. Donald
Stidham.
6. Lights in fog will create “halo” effect, violating Dark
Skies Initiative.
8. Policy to use school facilities not implemented.
9. Park past carrying capacity (McLaren Park, almost
same size, fraction of users).
10. Master Plan mandates “pastoral,” “sylvan”: Prop I
lets Rec and Park do anything it wants.
Vote No in Prop I and Yes on Prop H.
Coalition to Save Ocean Beach
Friends of Lands End
Friends of Sutro Heights Park
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
158
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
Brenda Altman, Board Member, Planning Association
for the Richmond (“PAR”) *
Fred Altschuler, Board Member, PAR*
Robert Fries, Board Member, PAR*
Sharon Gadberry, Board Member, PAR*
Jason Jungreis, Board Member, PAR*
Cheryl Schultz, Board Member, PAR*
Dr. David Smith, Founder, Haight Ashbury Free Clinic*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Martin Stidham, 2. Donald Stidham, 3. Esther
A. Melvin.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
FORMER PLANNERS AND SUPERVISORS OPPOSE
PROPOSITION I
Proposition “I” betrays years of systematic, deliberate
planning for the future of Golden Gate Park.
The Golden Gate Park Master Plan and San Francisco’s
Western Shoreline Area Plan were carefully crafted to
protect the naturalistic beauty of the western end of
Golden Gate Park. But Proposition “I” violates those
plans and allows over 7 acres of artificial turf and
150,000 watts of garish sports lighting in Golden Gate
Park, right next to Ocean Beach.
Proposition “I” also tries to limit the public’s control
over what happens to ALL our parks.
38-EN-N14-CP158
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
RPD Gardeners say “NO on I”
RPD has purposely deferred routine maintenance on
the Beach Chalet Soccer Fields. This planned deterioration was due to improper funding, inadequate staffing,
and mismanagement.
Covering seven acres of natural grass with artificial
turf increases the City’s carbon footprint, contaminates
water that is used to clean the soccer fields, and the
artificial turf is considered toxic waste when replaced.
NO on I!
Coalition of Retired SFRPD Gardeners
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Greg Miller.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT PUTTING
ARTIFICIAL TURF AND STADIUM LIGHTING IN
GOLDEN GATE PARK NEXT TO OCEAN BEACH
ARTIFICIAL TURF IN GOLDEN GATE PARK DOES NOT
SAVE WATER - IT COSTS WATER:
The grass at Beach Chalet needs one-quarter the irrigation that RPD has claimed.
Currently, the irrigation water for the Beach Chalet
fields is pumped from the aquifer under the park and
returns to the aquifer after the real grass is irrigated.
Proposition “I” is atrocious planning policy and atrocious legislation.
With artificial turf, clean rainwater that now replenishes the aquifer will be sent to the sewage plant, and
YOU will pay for processing it.
To respect Golden Gate Park and the civic planning
process democratically used to protect our parks, vote
YES on “H” and NO on “I”
Artificial turf must be rinsed weekly to prevent bacterial build-up -- that water usage is not included in RPD
calculations.
Retired Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp, former
California State Senator, former SF Supervisor*
Aaron Peskin, former President SF Board of
Supervisors*
John Bardis, former SF Supervisor and former
President, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods*
Dennis Antenore, former SF Planning Commissioner*
LOST CARBON SEQUESTRATION:
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The stadium lighting will damage the environment
both in the Park, at Ocean Beach, and in the surrounding area. Learn more at “Slideshare artificial lighting
longcore.”
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.
Living grass sequesters carbon. Artificial turf does not.
It would take over 7,000 trees grown for 10 years to
offset the adverse environmental impact of the artificial turf fields.
STADIUM LIGHTING:
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Martin Stidham, 2. Esther A. Melvin, 3. Donald
Stidham.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
38-EN-N14-CP159
159
HABITAT LOSS:
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance*
The artificial turf will destroy the habitat for over 60
species of birds and for other wildlife.
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
STOP THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Greg Miller.
VOTE NO on I.
Learn the truth on our website
SF Ocean Edge
SF Green Party
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Greg Miller.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
SAVE THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF THE BEACH
CHALET FIELDS!
The Beach Chalet project is so destructive of the
western end of Golden Gate Park that it will remove
that part of the Park from the National Register of
Historic Places.
Golden Gate Park was designed to provide recreation
within the framework of a naturalistic landscape with
forests, meadows and lakes. Naturalistic means that
the landscape appears as if nature put it there.
Over 7 acres of artificial turf are not naturalistic!
Over 150,000 watts of stadium lighting on 60 foot
poles are not naturalistic!
The Beach Chalet fields can be renovated with real
grass and no sports lighting, and provide hours of
play for children without destroying the character of
the Park. Restrooms can still be renovated. ADA paths
can still be added.
Money already exists for alternatives to provide more
hours of play for children while protecting the landscape of Golden Gate Park for EVERYONE - -kids,
parents, hikers, bikers, strollers, picnickers - old and
young, rich and poor.
SAVE GOLDEN GATE PARK - FOR EVERYONE!
NO ON I.
Sue Englander, SF historian
Katherine Howard, ASLA –
SPUR Sustainable Development Committee, Past Chair
(4 years)*
Ocean Beach Master Plan, PAC*
Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority, CAC*
UC Berkeley Extension, Past Lecturer, Landscape
History*
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
NO on I !
The City’s sole purpose in putting this measure on the
ballot is to crush the Prop H campaign for a natural
grass renovation of the west end of Golden Gate
Park’s soccer fields. Proposition I would cancel a positive vote on H. That means if Prop H passes but fails to
get as many votes as Prop I, then the artificial turf and
stadium lighting of these fields would be allowed.
Vote NO on I.
Prop I abridges the public’s right to protest a
Recreation and Parks project in their neighborhoods.
Does the City actually propose eliminating public
appeals of their decisions? Call it “I” for Illegal! This is
a sham. State law does not allow such a limit of
appeals
Vote No on I.
SPEAK
Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: SPEAK - Sunset-Parkside Education and Action
Committee.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
No on Proposition I!
The City states that the Beach Chalet fields must be
renovated with artificial turf and night lights because
kids need more play time. This is incorrect. Artificial
turf and light will not significantly increase play time
for youth soccer. Almost 90% of the increased play
time would be for adult soccer play when the bright
field lights they are proposing will be on until 10 pm
every night.
Vote No on I and Yes on H. Protect Golden Gate Park
and keep it healthy and natural for everyone!
San Francisco Tomorrow
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Tomorrow.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
160
Paid Arguments – Proposition I
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
San Franciscans say Protect Golden Gate Park and all
of our parks!
VOTE NO ON I !
Richmond Community Association
Jason Clark, SFGOP- Vice Chair*
Rick Hauptman:
North Mission Neighbors - President*
Noe Valley Democratic Club - past President*
Harvey Milk Democratic Club - past Vice-President*
Miriam Pinchuk:
Medical Editor
D5 Action, member*
Terry Rolleri, Homeowner
Shawna McGrew:
SF Recreation and Park Department, Supervisor, 37
years, retired*
George Wooding
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods - Vice
President
Soccer dad, coach, and team sponsor
Westside Observer - Columnist*
Nancy Wuerfel:
Open Space Committee of the Coalition for San
Francisco Neighborhoods, Co-Chair
PROSAC (Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory
Committee), 9-year Member*
Parkside 4 Kids, to support building the Dianne
Feinstein Elementary School while preserving the
playground! Founder & President
SPEAK (Sunset Parkside Education and Action
Committee), Past Vice President
Katherine Howard, American Society of Landscape
Architects*
38-EN-N14-CP160
required upkeep of Lavish Private Development
Projects.
Private developers stated that they won’t pay upkeep
costs for their projects. City Fields Foundation admits
there is little money in San Francisco’s budget for park
maintenance and the Foundation does not include
funding for long-term repairs and upkeep.
$6M is the recurring cost for the City Fields sports
stadium materials refurbishment.
$40,000 is the yearly cost for required detoxification of
the runoff from the ground tire infill. With natural
grass, the runoff flows back into the aquifer at no cost.
Does turfing 7 acres in Golden Gate Park, or other
such projects make sense for our tightly pinched City
budget?
Vote NO on I and YES on H
Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility
Susan Chen, President
Justin Baum Hawkins
Elizabeth Dal Bon
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Kathleen McCowin.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
The Sierra Club has worked to create hiking trails all
over the world. So don’t believe the big glossy brochures: Proposition I does not create hiking trails or
playgrounds. Prop I paves acres of Golden Gate Park
Vote No on Proposition I
Vote Yes on Proposition H (Save Golden Gate Park)
Sierra Club
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Sierra Club.
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Terry Rolleri, Greg Miller.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition I
San Francisco Taxpayers - Don’t Pay Upkeep for Lavish
Private Projects
NO on I
Prop I robs the City of its discretion to choose park
development projects, costing taxpayers millions in
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
162
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition J
J
38-EN-N14-CP162
Minimum Wage Increase
Shall the City gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour
by July 1, 2018, with further increases based on inflation?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: In November 2003, San Francisco
voters passed the minimum wage ordinance. Only voters can amend this ordinance. The current minimum
wage is $10.74 per hour for work performed in San
Francisco. This minimum wage increases annually
based on inflation.
The current minimum wage ordinance does not mention whether or not it applies to City employees or to
employees of the In-Home Support Services Public
Authority, a State-funded agency that provides services to help elderly and disabled persons in San
Francisco remain in their homes.
The Proposal: Proposition J is an ordinance that would
increase the minimum wage for employees who perform work in San Francisco as follows:
• on May 1, 2015, the minimum wage would
increase to $12.25 per hour;
• on July 1, 2016, the minimum wage would
increase to $13 per hour;
• on July 1, 2017, the minimum wage would
increase to $14 per hour;
• on July 1, 2018, the minimum wage would
increase to $15 per hour; and
• beginning on July 1, 2019, the minimum wage
would increase annually based on inflation.
Proposition J would apply to City employees and to
employees of the In-Home Support Services Public
Authority.
Two types of employees would receive a limited
increase: employees under the age of 18 working in a
government-subsidized training or apprenticeship program; and employees over age 55 working for nonprofits that provide social welfare services and whose
positions are government-subsidized. These employees would receive a minimum wage of $12.25 per
hour starting on May 1, 2015, with annual increases
starting on July 1, 2016, based on inflation.
YES
NO
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want the
City to gradually increase the minimum wage to $15
per hour by July 1, 2018, with increases based on
inflation after that.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
the City to increase the minimum wage.
Controller’s Statement on “J”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition J:
Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the
voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant
impact on the cost of government.
The ordinance increases the City’s minimum wage to
$12.25 per hour in 2015 and requires specified annual
increases until reaching $15.00 per hour rate by 2018.
Annual cost-of-living increases would then apply for
years after 2018. The measure would apply to both private and public employers in the City, with narrow
exceptions outlined in the ordinance.
The Controller’s Office estimates that the ordinance
will increase City government costs by approximately
$12.8 million in fiscal year (FY) 2015–16, $23.9 million
in FY 2016–17, $39.4 million in FY 2017–18 and $56.3
million in FY 2018–19. The majority of these costs are
attributable to higher wages required for non-profit
social service organizations that contract with the City.
City cost increases would continue automatically every
year after 2018 at the rate of the Consumer Price Index
and could not be changed except through voter
approval.
The City’s costs could be reduced in future years if the
State determines that some costs are reimbursable
under State guidelines.
This statement does not address the impact of the
proposed ordinance on the private economy.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP163
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition J
163
How “J” Got on the Ballot
On July 29, 2014, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to
0 to place Proposition J on the ballot. The Supervisors
voted as follows:
Yes: Avalos, Breed, Campos, Chiu, Cohen, Farrell, Kim,
Mar, Tang, Wiener, Yee.
No: None.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
164
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition J
38-EN-N14-CP164
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition J
Yes on Proposition J – Increasing San Francisco’s minimum wage to $15.00 an hour just makes sense. Our
workers will benefit, and so will the local economy.
With the rising cost of living, minimum wage workers
struggle to live in San Francisco. Under Proposition J,
the City’s minimum wage will gradually increase until
it reaches $15.00 per hour by 2018. After that, the City
will adjust the minimum wage based on increases to
the cost of living.
By increasing the minimum wage, we can take an
important step to support the workers and their families that make San Francisco run. Proposition J will
give much needed money to these workers, which in
turn will stabilize the workforce and benefit local businesses.
Currently, San Francisco’s minimum wage is set at
$10.74 per hour. This means that a full-time worker
with two children earns less than $22,400.00 per year,
a wage below the federal poverty level. This is unacceptable.
Proposition J is:
• Fair to workers: Raising the minimum wage will
give a raise to more than 100,000 San Francisco
workers.
• Fair to consumers: Raising the minimum wage will
strengthen our local economy by increasing consumer spending by over $100 million.
• Good for our community: Raising the minimum
wage lifts up low-wage workers without impacting
overall employment.
Please join us in voting YES on J. It is a true “win-win”
for our city.
Mayor Edwin Lee
Supervisor Jane Kim
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor David Chiu
Supervisor London Breed
Supervisor Norman Yee
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor John Avalos
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition J
Increasing minimum wage to $15.00 does not make
sense within 4 years in San Francisco, with small business having no consideration.
The rising cost of living will only escalate with the
increase in minimum wage. To be able to make a fair
profit businesses will need to increase the cost to the
consumer also those who are earning $15.00 now will
expect a raise.
Raising the minimum wage will encourage those from
outside the city to compete with San Francisco workers thus entry level local workers will have difficulty in
finding employment.
It will not strengthen the local economy as consumers
will tend to spend less.
Raising the minimum wage will have an impact on
low-wage workers who may be let go because of the
impact on income it will have on small businesses.
Join small business by voting NO on J.
San Francisco Council of District Merchants
Associations
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP165
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition J
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition J
OPPOSITION TO PROP J.
I am Henry Karnilowicz, president of the San Francisco
Council of District Merchants Associations.
We are opposed to the increase in minimum wage to
$15.00 in such a short time. The increase will impact
hiring entry level workers, cost of doing business will
increase and thus it will pass on to the consumer. This
will not benefit the low income workers.
Henry Karnilowicz
President
SFCDMA
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition J
Proposition J gradually increases the minimum wage
over time. Under Proposition J, the minimum wage
would increase in small steps once every year until it
reaches $15.00/hr in 2018.
Proposition J was carefully crafted over an eight
month process that included representatives from
neighborhood organizations, labor, and the business
sector. These different stakeholders came together in
order to make sure that any proposed increase would
be gradual and would not hurt our local economy.
Cities with higher minimum wages often experience
higher rates of economic growth. That’s because raising the minimum wage produces disposable income
for consumers--and when consumers spend, everyone
prospers. Businesses earn higher profits, hiring
increases, and incomes continue to rise.
Mayor Edwin M. Lee
Supervisor Jane Kim
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor London Breed
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor David Chiu
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor Norman Yee
A higher minimum wage decreases employee turnover which saves expenses on job training and saves
a company a loss of productivity when an employee
leaves.
We urge you to vote YES on Proposition J to raise the
minimum wage and assure all workers of a living, sustainable wage.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
165
166
Paid Arguments – Proposition J
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
Nonprofits support Prop J to increase the minimum
wage! We are an association of 70 health and human
service nonprofits that serve vulnerable San Francisco
residents. The low-income people we serve need
higher wages to lift themselves out of poverty and
provide better lives for their families. Our nonprofit
workers deserve livable wages that enable them to
keep their jobs and stay in the city. Please vote yes!
San Francisco Human Services Network
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Human Services Network.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
Yes to increase the Minimum Wage
38-EN-N14-CP166
Prop. J is also fair to businesses and good for our
economy. Studies prove that when wages rise, jobs
are created and the local economy grows stronger.
Prop J will generate approximately $391 Million for
the local economy by 2018.
Proposition J is the result of community organizations
and labor unions joining together as the Coalition for
a Fair Economy, building on a similar San Francisco
coalition formed ten years ago that led the first movement to raise the Minimum Wage and strengthen our
community. Members include: ACCE Action, California
Nurses Association, Chinese Progressive Association,
Jobs with Justice, SF Labor Council, SF Progressive
Workers Alliance, SF Rising, SEIU 1021, UNITEHERE
Local 2, and Young Workers United. Learn more
about our work fighting economic inequality at
www.RaiseUpSF.org
We know first-hand the pains of trying to support a
family in San Francisco. Every day we see our vibrant
communities challenged by the harsh economic realities of our times. The average rent for an apartment is
now over $3,000. Everyday working San Franciscans
need more income and more affordable housing.
Please help us begin to lift over 140,000 workers out
of poverty by voting YES on Proposition J.
Let’s raise the minimum wage. YES on Proposition J!
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. SEIU Local 1021, 2. Jobs With Justice,
3. California Nurses Association.
The Council of Community Housing Organizations
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: The Council of Community Housing
Organizations.
The Coalition for a Fair Economy
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for a Fair Economy.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
The San Francisco Democratic Party urges you to vote
YES on J to ensure a living wage for our city’s
workers.
Proposition J is about justice.
San Francisco Democratic Party
It takes a critical step to address growing economic
inequality by raising our city’s Minimum Wage.
San Francisco workers who work hard doing difficult
and demanding jobs shouldn’t live in poverty, but the
growing wealth gap has left nearly one-quarter of our
workforce stuck with poverty wages. The struggles of
fast-food worker, janitors, home health aides, retail
clerks, and waiters, have touched the hearts of all of
us.
Too many families are forced to choose between food
and rent, between medicine and kids’ clothing, here in
the most unequal city in the country. San Francisco
needs a raise.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: SF Democratic Party.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
We stand behind labor, the Board of Supervisors, and
the Mayor in saying YES on J—increase the minimum
wage!
District 5 Democratic Club
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Better Wages, Yes on J.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Teamsters Local 350.
Proposition J is fair to workers and good for our community. It gives close to 140,000 low-wage workers a
raise to $15/hour by 2018—many of them working
families, women, and workers of color.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP167
Paid Arguments – Proposition J
167
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
San Francisco deserves a raise!
A higher minimum wage will benefit all workers and
will increase demand for local businesses. It’s the least
we can do.
Our community desperately needs a living wage.
Working class people in San Francisco are under
immense pressure from the high cost of living in the
City. Proposition J is essential to help our working
class families. We urge you to support Proposition J.
Tenderloin Housing Clinic
Chinatown Community Development Center
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Better Wages.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Teamsters Local 350.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Better Wages, Yes on J.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Teamsters Local 350.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
Vote YES on J to reaffirm a commitment to our city’s
workers. There is no better way to show our appreciation for our working class residents. With rising costs,
we must do more to ensure that everyone has a
working wage.
Prop J’s gradual increase in the minimum wage is a
smart way to help build our city’s working class and to
contribute to a better San Francisco.
Community Housing Partnership
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Better Wages.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Teamsters Local 350.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
We must fight for our working class.
San Francisco workers are being priced out of their
own city. These workers are the backbone of our
economy. Please join us in supporting them by voting
YES ON J!
San Francisco Latino Democratic Club
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Better Wages.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Teamsters Local 350.
San Francisco Building and Construction Trade Council
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Better Wages, Yes on J.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Teamsters Local 350.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition J
The San Francisco Labor Council fully supports and
encourages an increase in the minimum wage to
provide stability and a living wage for San Francisco
workers.
San Francisco Labor Council
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Committee for Better Wages.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
Teamsters Local 350.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition J
No Paid Arguments AGAINST Proposition J Were Submitted
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
168
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition K
K
38-EN-N14-CP168
Affordable Housing
Shall it be City policy to help construct or rehabilitate at least 30,000
homes by 2020, more than 50% of which will be affordable for
middle-class households and more than 33% of which will be
affordable for low- and moderate-income households, and secure
sufficient funding to achieve that goal?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: San Francisco has established
goals for affordable housing production and preservation based on the housing needs for low- and moderate-income households.
To accomplish these goals the City has programs to:
• build and improve affordable homes,
• provide down-payment assistance to homebuyers, and
• help families and individuals stay in affordable
homes and prevent displacement.
Federal, state, local, and private funds are used to
achieve these goals. One source of affordable housing
funding is fees paid by new housing and office development. Another major funding source has been a setaside of increased property tax revenues from redevelopment project areas. Because of changes in state law
ending redevelopment agencies, these funds are
expiring.
In November 2012, the voters approved a measure
establishing the Housing Trust Fund (Fund) to set aside
a portion of the City’s budget for affordable housing
programs. The City is required to make contributions
to the Fund that increase annually; however the current funding level is only half of the average annual
funding from redevelopment.
Without additional revenues, the City may not be able
to meet its housing goals.
YES
NO
The Proposal: Proposition K would establish the following as City policy:
• by 2020, the City will help construct or rehabilitate at least 30,000 homes. More than 50% of the
housing will be affordable for middle-class households, with at least 33% affordable for low- and
moderate-income households;
• the City will attempt to ensure that 33% of new
housing in areas that are rezoned to provide
more residential development is affordable to
low- and moderate-income households;
• the Mayor and Board of Supervisors will create a
funding strategy to build new affordable housing,
to purchase land for affordable housing, to preserve existing rental units, and to fund public
housing rehabilitation;
• by January 1, 2015, the Mayor and the Board of
Supervisors will introduce legislation requiring a
regular review of the ratio of affordable to market-rate housing production; and
• the Board of Supervisors will hold an annual
hearing on progress toward the City’s housing
goals and work with the Mayor to accomplish
them.
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want to
make it City policy to help construct or rehabilitate at
least 30,000 homes by 2020 and secure sufficient funding to achieve that goal. More than 50% of the housing will be affordable for middle-class households,
with at least 33% affordable for low- and moderateincome households.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
to adopt this City policy.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP169
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition K
169
Controller’s Statement on “K”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition K:
Should the proposed declaration of policy be
approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would not
affect the cost of government.
A declaration of policy cannot bind future Mayors and
Boards of Supervisors to provide or reduce funding.
Budget amounts for affordable housing or any other
purpose or program depend on decisions made
through the City’s budget and fiscal processes as
specified in the Charter.
How “K” Got on the Ballot
On July 29, 2014, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to
0 to place Proposition K on the ballot. The Supervisors
voted as follows:
Yes: Avalos, Breed, Campos, Chiu, Cohen, Farrell, Kim,
Mar, Tang, Wiener, Yee.
No: None.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
170
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition K
38-EN-N14-CP170
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition K
Yes on Proposition K - Housing Action and
Neighborhood Stabilization Plan
• Enact a goal of 33% affordable housing in areas of
the City where significant new housing is added.
Housing affordability is currently one of the City’s
greatest challenges. In response, the City is committing to take immediate action to generate revenue and
execute strategies that will preserve and build housing
for our residents at all income levels.
• Generate new revenue to build affordable housing
at all levels.
In San Francisco, rents are three times higher than the
national average. The average rent for a two bedroom
apartment is $3,898 a month. We, as policy makers,
need to do more.
Proposition K holds the City accountable to an action
plan to:
Proposition K is a unified effort to make the City
affordable and accessible for all.
Vote Yes on Prop. K!
Mayor Edwin Lee
Supervisor Jane Kim
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor David Chiu
Supervisor London Breed
• Build 30,000 new units by 2020, half of which are
affordable to working households, with 33% permanently affordable to low and moderate-income
households and 17% accessible to middle-income
earners.
• Establish a Neighborhood Stabilization Trust to protect existing tenants and curb rapidly rising rents by
acquiring buildings and converting them into permanently affordable housing.
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition K
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING???
Affordable housing is a dream turned bad in San
Francisco.
In a highly lobbyed vote by greedy developers, the
San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 6 to 5 to
tear down some 1538 affordable housing garden
apartments in Parkmerced just before the 2011 Mayor’s
election. Lightly opposed incumbent Mayor Ed Lee
unwisely signed this controversial legislation,
promptly losing three precincts in and near
Parkmerced – the only areas he lost west of 19th
Avenue and south of Golden Gate Park. He also lost in
all the heavy rental areas of the Mission, Potrero,
South of Market, the Castro, Haight-Ashbury, Western
Addition, the Port, and the western Presidio.
The influence of lobbyist has caused lots of disputes
in the whole area of affordable housing – and how it is
politically defined. Landlord and tenant groups each
claim that they are the “true defenders” of good housing policies in San Francisco. No doubt those disputes
will continue for a long time to come.
Proposition K needs to be rewritten.
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
United States President’s Executive Awards
Committeeman (1988)*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
If those same vote patterns appear again in the open
17th Assembly District race between Supervisors
David Chiu (who voted to tear down Parkmerced’s garden apartments and against Parkmerced’s tenants) and
David Campos (who voted against pulling down the
garden apartments and for Parkmerced’s tenants), the
election campaign could be extremely close.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP171
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition K
171
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition K
THE 49 SQUARE MILES OF SAN FRANCISCO ARE
ALREADY HAVING LOCAL OVERPOPULATION
PROBLEMS AND INCREASED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS:
Enough is enough. San Francisco has already reached
it’s reasonable population carrying capacity. The City
already has more people per square mile than any
other of the 9 Bay Area Counties.
districts… regardless of the social and economic damage to be caused locally.
Vote “NO!” on misguided planning and Proposition
“K”.
Dr. Terence Faulkner, J.D.
Golden Gate Taxpayers Association Chairman
Money-seeking developers may dream of running up
the population of the City and County of San Francisco
beyond one million residents, but - given the land area
of the City – there is a serious price to be paid in traffic
problems, auto accidents, Muni transportation limits,
and unavailable and overtaxed public services. Greed
runs ahead of good zoning.
Parkmerced’s management wants to increase the population on their 150 acres from 8,000 to perhaps
25,000 people – but 19th Avenue already has more
automobiles than it can properly handle.
Other builders and planners want to stuff another
250,000 residents into the City’s Sunset Parkside,
Richmond, St. Francis Wood, Forest Hill, Mt. Davidson,
Ingleside, Crocker-Amazon, Mission, Potrero, and other
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition K
It is clear that we need more affordable housing
options in San Francisco. This framework helps ensure
that everyone, now and in the future, will have access
to housing we can afford so that low-income and middle-class families will be able to find housing and
won’t be priced out of the city.
Mayor Edwin M. Lee
Supervisor Jane Kim
Supervisor John Avalos
Supervisor London Breed
Supervisor David Chiu
Fixating on the population capacity of San Francisco is
an erroneous argument that ignores the issue at hand.
Proposition K is a forward-looking measure that
addresses growth concerns by providing a solution to
the ongoing housing crisis.
Proposition K provides a long-term framework for the
production of affordable housing, and sets forth sensible housing policy goals.
As a city, we must commit to increasing our production of housing at all income levels to maintain our
rich diversity. And Proposition K does just that.
Let’s make sure San Francisco stays affordable. Vote
Yes on Prop K.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
172
Paid Arguments – Proposition K
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Yes On K To Put San Francisco’s Future On The Right
Track
Yes, San Francisco will Change – but Proposition K
gives the Voters the opportunity to decide what the
future outcome of this Change will be.
Either our City will be home to just the well-to-do, the
overcrowded, and the isolated poor thanks to “market
forces” alone, or it will also be home for working
people and families with moderate and middle
incomes and seniors with Social Security. Proposition
K’s 33% affordable housing production goal can be
achieved – our City just needs to creatively use all the
tools available to get there – and keep it up for generations to come.
It’s up to the Voters to formally set this Policy commitment in place now by voting Yes on K, and then hold
City Hall accountable for meeting that standard at
every future election from now on!
Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, John
Elberling, Chair
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
SUPPORT SOLUTIONS TO MAKE HOUSING
AFFORDABLE!
The Housing Action Coalition, a 15-year-old non-profit
with over 130 members, was formed to support more
local solutions for housing affordability and we
support Prop K. The current affordability crisis threatens San Francisco’s future as a diverse, inclusive
place. Prop K is the fortunate compromise by Mayor
Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors to address this
challenge. It’s a consensus-based approach by our
leaders to the housing problems we face - something
that too rarely happens.
Our housing prices have exploded because we have a
red-hot economy that continues to attract thousands
of new workers, many from hi-tech, to a city with a
chronically inadequate supply. Our housing production
has not come close to keeping up with this relentless
demand. Worse, our past strategies to build or fund
affordable housing are not sufficient. The City’s hollowing out of its middle class is a sad testament to this.
Prop K deserves your vote because it recognizes the
urgent need to increase the supply of new housing
and to target it more intelligently to those who need it
38-EN-N14-CP172
worst, especially our middle-income folks. Prop K recognizes that while we need to build more housing, we
also need to increase our funding to subsidize affordability for the large number of folks that want to stay
in San Francisco, but cannot access market-rate
housing. Prop K was written to recognize the broad
consensus that exists across the political spectrum for
these goals. If we ever plan to solve our housing
affordability crisis, all the housing stakeholders must
come together and begin finding solutions that work.
Prop K does just this.
Vote YES on Prop K!
The San Francisco Housing Action Coalition
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Housing Action Coalition.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
The Building Owners and Managers Association of
San Francisco supports Proposition K – The Affordable
Housing Statement
The high cost of housing in San Francisco has become
the most critical issue facing the City today. A day
doesn’t go by without another article in the newspaper
or story on the news about how expensive it is to rent
or buy a home in San Francisco. It is important to
remember that market forces drive prices, and it’s
impossible to prevent people from wanting to move to
our fabulous City. Consequently, this high demand is
the primary driver of our rising housing costs.
However, there are ways the City can promote the
construction of more affordable housing. To that end,
BOMA San Francisco applauds the Mayor and Board
of Supervisors for reaching an agreement to put a
policy statement, Proposition K, on the ballot. Prop K
clarifies and supports the future construction of affordable housing in San Francisco. It is a policy statement
that doesn’t place the burden of ballot-box zoning on
voters and is the right way to proceed toward our collectively supported goal of building more affordable
housing in San Francisco
BOMA San Francisco says Yes on Prop K!
Ken Cleaveland, VP, Public Policy
BOMA San Francisco
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: BOMA - SF - Ballot - PAC.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Kilroy Realty, 2. Morgan Stanley, 3. Pacific Gas
& Electric.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP173
Paid Arguments – Proposition K
173
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Stabilization!
Yes on K.
I stand with Proposition K, alongside the Mayor,
Supervisors Jane Kim, London Breed, David Chiu, and
John Avalos, because I firmly believe that affordable
housing is necessary to make our city more inclusive
and diverse. This is an important and necessary step
to ensuring that all of our residents – from all communities and all walks of life – have steady access to
homes, and that our city develops with those concerns
in mind.
We need immediate and realistic solutions for San
Francisco’s affordability crisis that stop the displacement and gentrification currently threatening residents
of our city.
Proposition K will set a new standard for housing
affordability in San Francisco. By establishing a city
policy that – at minimum – 33% of housing must be
affordable to low and moderate income residents, and
laying out a plan for making this goal a reality, Prop K
turns San Francisco’s legacy of prioritizing affordable
housing into an official policy with accountability to
the Voters.
Yes on K, for affordable housing and stabilizing our
neighborhoods!
The Council of Community Housing Organizations
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: The Council of Community Housing
Organizations.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Affordable housing is an essential goal that our city
must achieve to stem the housing crisis. We urge you
to vote YES on K this November.
I urge you to vote YES ON PROP K!
Reverend Norman Fong*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for Affordable Housing, a Committee for
Prop K.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
TODCO.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
A commitment to affordable housing is a commitment
to our local communities and our city’s character. Vote
YES with us and support San Francisco.
District 5 Democratic Club
San Francisco Democratic Party
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for Affordable Housing.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: SF Democratic Party.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
TODCO.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Our city is faced with a daunting housing crisis. Latino
and other minority communities are especially hit
hard. Please join us in supporting Proposition K to
ensure that we protect the diversity that makes San
Francisco strong!
We cannot afford to sit idly by as our city’s rent crisis
gets worse and people are priced out of their own
homes. Stand with us as we support Prop K that
addresses the housing crisis. Vote YES on K.
San Francisco Latino Democratic Club
Mission Economic Development Agency
San Francisco Building and Construction Trades
Council
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for Affordable Housing.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for Affordable Housing, a Committee for
Prop K.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
TODCO.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
TODCO.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
174
Paid Arguments – Proposition K
38-EN-N14-CP174
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition K
Proposition K makes a citywide commitment to affordable housing; a much needed step in the right direction.
Proposition K’s purpose—reducing housing costs for
San Franciscans—sounds worthy. But below-marketrate housing and market controls didn’t prevent the
current housing crisis, nor do we believe that Prop K
will solve it.
The policies set forth in this measure will help to
acquire housing that is affordable at all levels.
That’s why we support Proposition K. We ultimately
believe that more affordable housing protects our
city’s diversity and keeps San Franciscans here, where
they belong.
Tenderloin Housing Clinic
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for Affordable Housing.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
TODCO.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Proposition K will provide a boost in the supply of
affordable and accessible housing that will stabilize
working class families, which will in turn help bolster
the local economy. This is a win-win solution that our
city simply cannot afford to miss.
San Francisco Labor Council
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for Affordable Housing.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
TODCO.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Our city’s diversity is its greatest strength. But minority communities are being pushed out. Vote YES on K
to help keep residents in their homes.
Proposition K sets an arbitrary goal of adding 30,000
largely subsidized units by 2020 without any price tag,
or specifics for paying for them. It sets targets for different types of housing without rationale. It establishes new bureaucratic entities with overly broad responsibilities of “stabilizing” rents and evictions. It does
nothing to improve the costly approval process for
getting housing built in San Francisco. It reflects no
new insights into the causes of our housing problems.
This initiative is premature. A supervisor-introduced
Policy is not advisory; it has teeth. It will compel legislation to do the above and more. Voters are being
asked to green-light changes that haven’t been fully
validated and haven’t been broadly discussed.
Vote no on Proposition K.
San Francisco Republican Party
Charles Cagnon, Mathew Del Carlo, Jason P. Clark,
John Dennis, Howard Epstein, Alisa Farenzena, Terence
Faulkner, Barry Graynor, Christine Hughes, Joan
Leone, Rodney Leong, David Salaverry, Dana Walsh,
Christopher L. Bowman, Stephanie Jeong, Daniel Higa
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Republican Party.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Charles M. Munger, 2. Christine Hughes,
3. Dhillon Smith.
Calvin Louie
Chinese American Democratic Club
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for Affordable Housing.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee:
TODCO.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition K
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
176
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition L
L
38-EN-N14-CP176
Policy Regarding Transportation Priorities
Shall it be City policy to change parking and transportation priorities?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now: The San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA) operates Muni, the
City’s public transit system. The SFMTA also manages
most of the City’s parking meters and City-owned
parking lots and garages. It also has the authority to
install additional parking meters and build more parking facilities.
The SFMTA sets the hours, days, and rates for parking
meters and parking garages under its jurisdiction.
It also determines the fines for violations of parking
restrictions. Most on-street parking meters operate
only Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., and do not operate on Sundays,
Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s Day.
The SFMTA has introduced demand-responsive pricing for some parking meters in several neighborhoods
in an effort to increase turnover of parking spaces.
Demand-responsive pricing adjusts the price for parking according to demand in specific areas.
The SFMTA administers the Residential Parking Permit
program, which allows residents in some neighborhoods to purchase a permit to park in their neighborhood for longer than the posted time restrictions. The
SFMTA sets the price for these permits in accordance
with state law.
The City Charter requires the SFMTA to spend revenues generated from its parking garages and parking
meters to support SFMTA operations, including public
transit. The Charter also requires that a certain amount
of the City’s General Fund be allocated to the SFMTA.
The City may allocate to the SFMTA additional revenues from other sources.
The SFMTA is governed by a seven-member Board of
Directors appointed by the Mayor; four must be regular Muni riders and the other three must ride Muni at
least once a week.
YES
NO
The City’s Charter includes a Transit-First Policy that
emphasizes the safe and efficient movement of people
and goods. Top transportation priorities are public
transit, bicycling, and walking.
The Proposal: Proposition L would establish the following as City policy:
• Parking meters should never operate on Sundays,
holidays observed by the City, or outside the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Starting on July 1, 2015, the SFMTA should freeze
fees for City-owned parking garages, meters,
parking tickets, and neighborhood parking permits for five years, after which the City is allowed
to annually adjust prices based on the Consumer
Price Index;
• The SFMTA should not install any parking meters
or parking meters with demand-responsive pricing in any neighborhood where they currently do
not exist, unless a majority of households and
businesses in that neighborhood have signed a
petition supporting the changes;
• The SFMTA should use a portion of funds generated by new parking, vehicle fees, or the sale of
new bonds for SFMTA purposes, to construct and
operate neighborhood parking garages;
• The goal of any proposed re-engineering of traffic
flows by the City should be to achieve safer,
smoother-flowing traffic on City streets;
• The City should enforce traffic laws equally for all
users of San Francisco’s streets and sidewalks;
• The SFMTA’s Board of Directors should include a
representation of all transportation stakeholders,
including motorists, and
• The SFMTA should create a Motorists’ Citizens
Advisory Committee.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
38-EN-N14-CP177
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition L
177
A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote “yes,” you want the
Board of Supervisors to adopt these changes in parking and transportation policies.
A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want
the Board of Supervisors to adopt these policy
changes.
Controller’s Statement on “L”
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition L:
Should the proposed declaration of policy be
approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would not
affect the cost of government.
A declaration of policy cannot bind future Mayors and
Boards of Supervisors to provide or reduce funding.
Budget amounts for transportation or any other purpose or program depend on decisions made through
the City’s budget and fiscal processes as specified in
the Charter.
How “L” Got on the Ballot
On July 11, 2014, the Department of Elections certified
that the initiative petition calling for Proposition L to
be placed on the ballot had a sufficient number of
valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
9,702 signatures were required to place a declaration
of policy on the ballot. This number is equal to 5% of
the total number of people who voted for Mayor in
2011. A random check of the signatures submitted by
the proponents of the initiative petition prior to the
July 7, 2014, submission deadline showed that the
total number of valid signatures was greater than the
number required.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow.
The full text begins on page 186. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained starting on page 60.
178
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition L
38-EN-N14-CP178
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition L
EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
IS ESSENTIAL, BUT SAN FRANCISCO NEEDS
TRANSPORTATION POLICIES THAT WORK FOR
EVERYONE -- INCLUDING THE MAJORITY OF
HOUSEHOLDS, WHO RELY ON CARS IN THEIR DAILY
LIVES.
Almost 80% of San Francisco households own motor
vehicles, yet the SFMTA’s policies penalize them by
eliminating traffic lanes and parking spaces, increasing
the cost and hours of parking meters, increasing penalties and fines, and imposing meters and “demand
responsive pricing” in neighborhoods where they
hadn’t previously existed.
This has increased congestion, costs, stress, aggressiveness, pollution, carbon emissions and travel times.
It especially harms families with small children, bluecollar workers, merchants, tradespeople, disabled people, seniors, and faith communities, threatening the
diversity that makes San Francisco so special. It jeopardizes public safety by making it harder for first
responders to maneuver their fire trucks and ambulances around ever-shrinking streets and ever-growing
obstacles.
and City officials about a transportation policy that
truly respects all people affected, instead of the MTA’s
top-down, heavy-handed, “we know what’s best for
you” campaign against cars and those who rely on
them.
Most people use more than one transportation mode –
they aren’t motorists all the time or transit riders all
the time or cyclists all the time. Not everyone can take
Muni to work. Just as most people aim for balance,
appropriateness and reasonableness, so does Restore
Transportation Balance.
Please join our early endorsers, including:
The Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, West
of Twin Peaks Central Council, Greater Geary
Boulevard Merchants Association, Eastern
Neighborhoods United Front (ENUF), SEIU Local 1021,
San Francisco Taxpayers Association and the San
Francisco Council of District Merchants Associations.
VoteyesonL.org
VOTE YES ON L
Restore Transportation Balance
Restore Transportation Balance is a policy declaration
that will open a meaningful dialogue with the MTA
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition L
Don’t be fooled: Prop L is an ill-conceived, radical
attempt to reverse our transportation policies and
decades of environmental progress.
Environmental, neighborhood and Democratic leaders
agree that Proposition L is an attack on our San
Francisco values and will make driving, Muni, and
street safety worse for everyone.
By prioritizing parking above all else, Proposition L
will actually make things worse. If you drive,
Proposition L will make our streets more crowded by
encouraging more people to drive. If you ride Muni,
Proposition L will take away desperately needed funding, and increasing the number of cars on the road
will make buses slower. Finally, by prioritizing “traffic
flow,” Prop L. will lead to more accidents that have
already killed too many pedestrians and cyclists.
Moreover, encouraging more cars on our streets will
hurt our City’s attempts to fight climate change.
Proposition L is clearly bad for the environment.
Proposition L isn’t about “restoring balance”-- it is a
conservative attack on San Francisco values.
Our broad coalition of San Franciscans urges you to
vote No on L:
San Francisco Democratic Party
Sierra Club
San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor David Chiu*
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor John Avalos
Walk San Francisco
San Francisco Transit Riders
Livable City
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
San Franciscans don’t want more dangerous streets,
slower Muni, more pollution or more gridlock.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP179
Local Ballot Measures – Proposition L
179
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition L
Proposition L is a radical effort to turn our transportation policies backwards and reverse decades of environmental progress. In doing so, it will make everyone’s daily commute worse and our streets less safe.
Despite its promises, Proposition L will only make our
streets more congested by encouraging people to join
the traffic jam.
In fact, whether you drive, walk, take transit, or bike,
Proposition L will make traffic, parking, and pollution
worse. This is why Proposition L is opposed by environmental, safety, and neighborhood groups, as well
as elected leaders.
Simply put, Proposition L will encourage people to
drive more by diverting our transportation dollars to
parking and will make streets more dangerous by prioritizing traffic flow over safety. If it pases, everyone
loses. For drivers, encouraging more people to drive
means more gridlock. For Muni riders, it means slower
transit and reduced funding. And for everyone,
Proposition L will mean more traffic collisions on our
streets.
Additionally, Proposition L would push the City to use
it’s limited resources to purchase land to build parking
garages instead of affordable housing or improving
Muni. San Francisco doesn’t have the space or funding to build homes for cars instead homes for people.
Finally, Proposition L does not reflect our San
Francisco values. We care about creating less pollution
and fighting climate change, not making our environment worse. We care about making transit better for
everyone, not making it slower. We care about making
our streets safer, not more dangerous.
Join us in voting “No on Gridlock, No on L.”
San Francisco Democratic Party
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor David Chiu*
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor Jane Kim
Supervisor John Avalos
San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
Walk San Francisco
Livable City
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition L
Proposition L is on the ballot because almost 18,000
San Franciscans believed San Francisco needed to add
balance and common sense to our transportation policies. The No on L argument shows they were right.
Board be reformed to include representatives of all the
stakeholders, a seat at the table for everyone. That’s
the San Francisco way. Will that encourage more driving?
Our opponents say Proposition L will lead to gridlock .
Proposition L asks that no neighborhood have entirely
new parking meters and fees forced down their
throats. Will that create gridlock ? Respecting the
rights of our neighborhoods is the San Francisco way.
We think gridlock comes from reducing multiple-lane
City streets to 2 or 1-lane streets, like O’Farrell and
Valencia.
Opponents of Proposition L talk about safety. Why
oppose Prop L, which calls for equal enforcement of
traffic laws for everyone, including bicyclists ?
Firefighters and EMT’s think current traffic policies of
narrowing streets and obstructing corners are unsafe.
That’s why Proposition L is endorsed by the San
Francisco Firefighters, Local 798.
Our opponents worry about pollution. Proposition L
asks that the City take any new transportation money
and explore creating new parking. When people don’t
have to circle, looking for parking that isn’t there, or
drive miles to big-box shopping malls, doesn’t that
reduce pollution ? We support our neighborhood-serving businesses. That’s the San Francisco way.
VOTE YES ON L. THAT’S THE SAN FRANCISCO WAY
Restore Transportation Balance
Proposition L opponents say Proposition L will encourage more driving. Proposition L asks that the SFMTA
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
180
Paid Arguments – Proposition L
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition L
San Francisco’s neighborhoods SUPPORT Prop L!
Send a message to SFMTA and City Hall:
We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it
anymore!
We’re fed up of not only being “nickeled and dimed,”
but also of being “drawn and quartered” by the City’s
efforts to tax and squeeze cars out of existence.
We fought a revolution over the issue of “no taxation
without representation,” yet motorists and other stakeholders who use our streets and sidewalks literally
don’t have seats at the transportation table.
STOP:
• The city’s top-down policies of foisting meters on
residential neighborhoods!
• Demand-responsive pricing on neighborhoods!
• Removing street parking in business corridors
without the consent of the neighbors and merchants!
End the city’s campaign against cars and other transportation stakeholders.
Join the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
and other neighborhood and merchant groups:
Vote ’L Yes on Prop L!
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Established 1972.
45 neighborhood organizations.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods —
CSFN.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition L
PROPOSITION L HELPS DISABLED PEOPLE AND
SENIORS
People with mobility disabilities and seniors have
fewer transportation choices, so many of us rely
heavily on cars. Muni has major disability access
problems, which have worsened in the past decade.
It’s impossible to get on Muni in a wheelchair, walker
or crutches during rush hour. Bus stops are being
eliminated and distances between stops are increasing. Some Muni elevators let you off in a dark, dangerous alley far beyond the end of the platform,
where you’re invisible to passengers on the platform.
Muni elevators smell of urine. Taxi access is getting
worse, and ride sharing companies offer no accessible
38-EN-N14-CP180
vehicles. Many people with mobility disabilities can’t
hold umbrellas, so it’s difficult to take the bus when
it’s raining.
MTA’s anti-car policies cause daily hardship for seniors
and people with mobility disabilities, but MTA refuses
to listen. Our mobility and equal opportunity, and San
Francisco’s demographic diversity, are threatened.
Prop L would help. Its policies include:
• equal enforcement of traffic safety laws,
• making it less difficult to find parking,
• protection from MTA’s plans to install meters in residential neighborhoods,
• preventing MTA from continuing to increase meter
rates and penalties far beyond inflation,
• instituting permanent relief from meter payment on
Sundays, holidays and evenings, and
• requiring that at least one of the MTA Board’s
seven members be a motorist.
YES on L
Howard Chabner, former Chair, Physical Access
Committee, Mayor’s Disability Council*
George Wooding, First Vice President, Coalition for
San Francisco Neighborhoods*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Howard Chabner; George Wooding.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition L
Proposition L Protects Residents and Merchants
When neighbors in the Northeast Mission, Potrero Hill,
and Dogpatch heard about SFMTA’s plans to put
parking meters in front of their homes and businesses,
residents and merchants united, lobbied City Hall, and
filed an injunction. Only because of this did SFMTA
retreat.
SFMTA tried the same tactic on a smaller scale,
announcing plans to install meters in front of homes
near USF. The neighbors rebelled and SFMTA backed
down.
This could happen in your neighborhood! SFMTA will
continue to try imposing meters in neighborhoods
unless San Franciscans send a loud message that this
is harmful and undemocratic.
Proposition L calls for the halt of such top-down
abuses by unelected appointees and faceless bureaucrats at SFMTA by proposing that before SFMTA
installs parking meters in any neighborhood where
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N14-CP181
they don’t exist, SFMTA must first get a petition
signed by a majority of households and merchants in
the neighborhood, requesting them.
Vote Yes on Prop. L
Mari Eliza, Founder, Eastern Neighborhoods United
Front*
Rick Hall
Jung Yun O’Donnell
Tommy Deschaine
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Mari Eliza, Rick Hall, Jung Yun O’Donnell.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition L
Proposition L is a much-needed shot across the bow
to let City Hall know that its unbalanced transportation
policies are out of step with the vast majority of San
Franciscans.
Increasingly, over the past 15 years, but particularly
over the past five, City Hall has waged a campaign
against motorists and cars that has not only created
hardships for motorists and their passengers, but also
created collateral damage to other stakeholders who
rely upon our streets and sidewalks to get around the
City. These stakeholders, whose legitimate concerns
are frequently ignored by City Hall, include first
responders, merchants and their customers, seniors
and the disabled, families with children, and members
of the faith-based communities.
Proposition L is a Declaration of Policy to restore some
of the City’s time-honored transportation policies that
were lost after June 30, 2009 -- the last day before
garage and parking rates increased by 40% and
meters started to be enforced on holidays, and subsequently, Sundays and after hours. Additionally,
Proposition L calls upon City Hall to ensure that all of
San Francisco’s major transportation stakeholders
have a seat at the table, so the City can move forward
with balanced policies that meet the needs of all transportation stakeholders, and truly fulfills the primary
objective of the City’s Transit First policy to facilitate
“the safe and efficient movement of people and
goods” throughout San Francisco.
VOTE YES ON PROP L.
San Francisco Republican Party
Charles Cagnon, Jason Clark, John Dennis, Howard
Epstein, Alisa Farenzena, Terence Faulkner, Barry
Paid Arguments – Proposition L
181
Graynor, Daniel Higa, Christine Hughes, Stephanie
Jeong, Joan Leone, Rodney Leong, David Salaverry,
Dana Walsh, Christopher L. Bowman, Matthew Del
Carlo
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Republican Party.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Charles Munger, 2. Christine Hughes,
3. Dhillon Smith.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition L
The final text of Proposition L was submitted to the
City Attorney’s office for Title and Summary on April
23rd, having undergone a five month process of 17
drafts and vetting the drafts with two dozen transportation stakeholders in the City.
The final draft reflected the consensus of a broad
based coalition of San Francisco voters who believe
that the City’s transportation policies have become
unbalanced, and the City needs to take a handful of
steps to get the SFMTA and the rest of City Hall back
on track.
Nearly 18,000 San Franciscans, in less than eight
weeks, signed the petition to qualify Restore
Transportation Balance (Prop. L) for the November
ballot.
In the past three months, fifteen organizations have
endorsed Prop. L as have over a 100 residents from all
corners of the City.
Please join the following organizations which have
endorsed Prop. L* when you cast your vote this election:
San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, SEIU Local 1021,
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Coalition for
San Francisco Neighborhoods, San Francisco Council
of District Merchants Associations, Greater Geary
Boulevard Merchants Association, Polk Street
Merchants Association, BOMA, West of Twin Peaks
Central Council, San Francisco Republican Party,
Eastern Neighborhoods United Front (ENUF), East
Mission Improvement Association, Libertarian Party of
San Francisco, Log Cabin Republican Club of San
Francisco, and Chinese American Democratic Club.
VOTE YES ON L
* as of August 18, 2014. For a current list of organizations and individuals who have endorsed Proposition L,
please go to our website at restorebalance14.org
Restore Transportation Balance
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
182
Paid Arguments – Proposition L
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Restore Transportation Balance.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Sean Parker, 2. William Bowen, 3. San
Francisco Republican Party.
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition L
SFMTA documents show that they have eliminated
4,000 parking spaces over the last years. Proposition L
calls upon the City to use a portion of any additional
parking or motorists’ fees and new bond monies earmarked for the SFMTA [in compliance with the parameters set by Prop. E in 1999] be used to construct and
operate new parking facilities in the neighborhoods.
Would the result be the construction of massive, ugly
parking garages throughout the City, absorbing the
limited land still to be developed in San Francisco?
Not at all. There are several examples of parking facilities, such as the Union Square, St. Mary’s, and
Portsmouth Square garages, where the structures
were either built underground or on a hill where they
are unobtrusive and reflect the character of their
neighborhood.
Additionally, these are mixed use facilities, with parks
and recreational facilities above for the public to enjoy.
Another structure built in the Mission at 21st and
Bartlett by a community-based non-profit housing
developer has two stories of parking - one for the
public and another for residents, and on the third floor
is a plaza and scores of units of affordable housing.
Smart planning can be a win/win for San Franciscans
who need parking, parks, recreational facilities, and
affordable housing all in mixed use projects.
The design, location, and size of new parking facilities
would be subject to a thorough public review process
which would address the concerns of the residents
and merchants of our neighborhoods.
Vote Yes on Proposition L.
Restore Transportation Balance
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Restore Transportation Balance.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee: 1. Sean Parker, 2. William Bowen, 3. San
Francisco Republican Party.
38-EN-N14-CP182
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition L
San Francisco taxpayers, through their federal, state,
and regional taxes and fees pay for nearly half
SFMTA’s annual budget. Motorists pay the lion’s share
of those taxes and fees.
Of the remaining 49% of the SFMTA’s annual budget,
motorists pay 23.77%, Muni riders pay 22.42%,
another 4.90% comes from traffic fines, rentals, and
advertising, and bicyclists pay 0.00%.
Additionally, bicyclists don’t have to take traffic safety
classes and pass a written exam and a road test to get
a rider’s license, because California doesn’t issue bicyclist licenses. Furthermore, they don’t have to register
their bicycles with the DMV or the City! Finally, too
many bicyclists don’t believe the rules of the road
apply to them. Indeed, it would be interesting to see
what percentage of the moving violations the City
issued in the past year went to bicyclists.
The U.S. Census in its latest five year estimate (20082012) of how San Franciscans get to work says that of
409,015 San Franciscans who work outside their
homes, 164,017 drive alone to work, 142,350 take
public transportation, 43,363 walked, but only 14,833
bicycled.
Bicylists constituted just 3.6% of San Francisco commuters, but meeting their needs for more bike lanes
by eliminating traffic lanes and street parking, and creating more gridlock, seems to be the number one
transportation objective of City Hall and the SFMTA
Board.
In their mind it has become a zero-sum game with the
bicyclist lobby winning at the expense of the 79% of
San Francisco households who use motor vehicles in
their day-to-day lives, with Muni left on the sidelines.
Proposition L is the first step in restoring balance to
San Francisco’s transportation policies by proposing
that “Traffic laws should be enforced equally for everyone using San Francisco’s streets and sidewalks”.
San Francisco Taxpayers Association
Superior Court Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret.)
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Taxpayers Association.
The two contributors to the true source recipient committee:
Denise La Pointe, Rick Hall.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition L
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Paid Arguments – Proposition L
38-EN-N14-CP183
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition L
‘L NO!
The San Francisco Transit Riders urge you to VOTE
‘NO’ ON GRIDLOCK.
Proposition L will not fix problems, it will only create
more of them. Blanket policies to reduce parking rates
and require rigid limits on metered parking will add to
circulating traffic, making our streets even more
crowded and less safe for everyone. More congestion
will only increase travel time for everyone, whether
you are a pedestrian, a cyclist, a Muni rider, or
someone driving a car. Who wants more congested
streets?
Reducing and freezing parking rates will only encourage more people to drive when other environmentally
preferred options are available. Since it will impact
SFMTA funding, Muni service may have to be cut or
improvements deferred, making buses and trains even
more overcrowded. Alternately, fares may have to be
increased even more often to compensate.
KEEP SAN FRANCISCO MOVING FORWARD! VOTE NO
ON PROP L!
San Francisco Transit Riders
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Transit Riders.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition L
Ten years ago, Cesar Chavez Street was scary. Then
neighbors, parents, and local workers organized to
transform this dangerous speedway. Now parents
walking children to school or seniors seeking care at
St. Luke’s Hospital no longer face six lanes of menacing traffic. Sidewalk and median plantings address
flooding problems. Clearly marked turning lanes for
cars reduce sudden lane changes. This transformation
enhances the health of our community, encouraging
walking and cycling.
But instead of appreciating these and similar efforts
across the city to protect the most vulnerable users of
our streets, the motorists pushing Proposition L resent
having to share public space with others. They are
seeking to turn back the clock and make it more difficult to travel safely and enjoy a healthy environment.
CC Puede has worked with the community to improve
our streets for all users. We urge voters to show
respect for everyone’s health and ability to get around.
Vote No on Proposition L.
CC Puede
183
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: CC Puede.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition L
‘L’ is a misguided attempt that will make most San
Franciscan’s drives worse, not better. It will result in
more cars on our streets, which means: more gridlock;
more competition for parking spaces and more pollution. The problem is we already have twice as many
cars as we had forty years ago. The solution is not
taking money from Muni, to build garages and ending
parking policies that are proven to help parkers and
merchants at no cost. The solution for drivers, transit
users and our planet is Transit First not ‘L’. ‘L’ is bad for
drivers, and worse for our planet.
Vote NO on ‘L’
Sierra Club
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: Sierra Club.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition L
South Beach, Rincon, Mission Bay Neighbors Say Vote
No on Prop L – No to Gridlock
Proposition L wants to take funding away from public
transit and put you into traffic. If you have to drive,
want to drive, or simply find yourself behind the
wheel of a car in San Francisco, your best friend is the
person who took Muni that morning, not the person
competing for your parking space. We are local South
Beach, Rincon and Mission Bay neighbors; veterans of
dealing with traffic congestion, which parking lots
attract. Proposition L directs funds towards the construction of more neighborhood parking garages and
rejects reasonable regulation of scarce on-street public
parking, which means more neighborhood traffic congestion, air pollution and gridlock.
Let’s keep San Francisco moving with better public
transit, Vote No on L.
Bruce Agid, SB/R/MB NA, Board Member and
Transportation Rep*
Katy Liddell, SB/R/MB NA, Board President*
Gary Pegueros, SB/R/MB NA, Board Secretary*
Alice Rogers, SB/R/MB NA, Board Vice-President*
Pat Valentino, South Beach Mission Bay Business
Assn, Vice-President*
Jamie Whitaker, SB/R/MB NA, Board Treasurer*
Corinne Woods
South Beach/Rincon/Mission Bay Neighborhood
Association (SB/R/MB NA)
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
184
Paid Arguments – Proposition L
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as
an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: The authors.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition L
38-EN-N14-CP184
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition L
VOTE NO ON L FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!
NO on L is one of three votes you can make for the
environment, along with Yes on A & Yes on B.
Every San Francisco resident and visitor who chooses
to get around by MUNI, foot or by bicycle means one
fewer car congesting our streets and neighborhoods.
To vilify and discourage them and instead add more
traffic to our crowded streets is madness.
Private automobiles create one-third of our city’s
carbon pollution, so improving alternatives to driving
is critical to fighting climate change. Proposition L
encourages driving and increases carbon pollution by
shifting resources away from Muni, walking, and
biking,
VOTE NO ON L
Taking money from transit is bad for the planet.
Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association
Vote NO on L.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: HAYES VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition L
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco League of Conservation Voters.
Keep Our Streets Safe- Vote No on L!
The safety of our streets should be our highest priority. In 2013, thirty four people died in preventable traffic
collisions on San Francisco streets, and two people
per week suffer life-changing in juries such as paralysis and amputation.
Proposition L claims that it is restoring balance, but
with pedestrian fatalaties four times higher in San
Francisco than peer cities, and seniors making up 50%
of those killed in traffic collisions, Proposition L will
make it even harder to make our streets safer and
protect those most vulnerable.
Proposition L changes current policy in a dangerous
way by prioritizing speed and convenience over
human life when designing San Francisco streets. This
change not only puts all of us at risk, but it puts the
most vulnerable-- our children and the elderly-- in the
most danger.
As San Franciscans, we deserve better. Please join us
in voting No on L, and yes for the safety of all San
Franciscans.
Walk San Francisco
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this
argument: San Francisco Bicycle Coallition and Walk San
Francisco.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
186
Legal Text – Proposition A
Proposition A
Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held
in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, November
4, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a
proposition to incur the following bonded debt of the City and
County: $500,000,000 to finance the construction, acquisition,
and improvement of certain transportation and transit related
improvements, and related costs necessary or convenient for the
foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50%
of the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants under
Administrative Code Chapter 37; providing for the levy and
collection of taxes to pay both principal and interest on such bonds;
incorporating the provisions of Administrative Code, Sections 5.30
– 5.36; setting certain procedures and requirements for the election;
finding that a portion of the proposed bond is not a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopting
findings under CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and Administrative Code,
Chapter 31, for the remaining portion of the bond; and finding
that the proposed bond is in conformity with the eight priority
policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1(b), and with the General
Plan consistency requirement of Charter, Section 4.105, and
Administrative Code, Section 2A.53.
Note: Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman;
deletions are strikethrough italics Times New Roman.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San
Francisco:
Section 1. Findings.
A. This Board of Supervisors (this “Board”) recognizes the
City’s current street and transportation infrastructure (the “Street and
Transportation System”) is inadequate to meet current demands, and
that the safety of City streets and transportation infrastructure will further decline without new investment.
B. The cost of making the necessary and required improvements to the Street and Transportation System has been estimated by
the Mayor’s Transportation Task Force at $10.1 billion over the next 15
years.
C. The Board recognizes the need to enhance the City’s Street
and Transportation System in order to create a system that is more reliable, efficient and meets future demand.
D. The Transportation and Road Improvement General
Obligation Bond (the “Bond”) will provide a portion of the funding
necessary to construct, improve and rehabilitate the Street and
Transportation System (as further defined in Section 3 below).
E. This Board now wishes to describe the terms of a ballot
measure seeking approval for the issuance of general obligation bonds
to finance all or a portion of the City’s improvements to its Street and
Transportation System as described below.
Section 2. A special election is called and ordered to be held in
the City on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 2014, for the purpose of
submitting to the electors of the City a proposition to incur bonded
indebtedness of the City for the project described in the amount and for
the purposes stated:
“SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD
IMPROVEMENT BOND. $500,000,000 of bonded indebtedness to
construct, redesign and rebuild streets and sidewalks and to make infrastructure repairs and improvements that increase MUNI service reliability, ease traffic congestion, reduce vehicle travel times, enhance
pedestrian and bicycle safety, and improve disabled access, subject to
independent citizen oversight and regular audits; and authorizing landlords to pass-through to residential tenants in units subject to Chapter
37 of the San Francisco Administrative Code (the “Residential
Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance”) 50% of the increase in the
real property taxes attributable to the cost of the repayment of the
bonds.”
38-EN-N14-CP186
The special election called and ordered shall be referred to in
this ordinance as the “Bond Special Election.”
Section 3. PROPOSED PROGRAM. All contracts that are
funded with the proceeds of bonds authorized hereby shall be subject to
the provisions of Chapter 83 of the City’s Administrative Code (the
“First Source Hiring Program”), which fosters construction and permanent employment opportunities for qualified economically disadvantaged individuals. In addition, all contracts that are funded with the
proceeds of bonds authorized hereby also shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 14B of the City’s Administrative Code (the “Local
Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting
Ordinance”), which assists small and micro local businesses to increase
their ability to compete effectively for the award of City contracts, to
the extent the Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination
Contracting Ordinance does not conflict with applicable state or federal
law.
A. CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. A portion of the
Bond shall be used to perform audits of the Bond, as further described
in Section 15.
Projects to be funded under the proposed Bond may include but
are not limited to the following:
B. PROVIDE FASTER AND MORE RELIABLE TRANSIT.
A portion of the Bond may be allocated to constructing improvements,
such as those identified in the Transit Effectiveness Project, that will
improve Muni service reliability and reduce travel time on Muni.
Examples of improvements that are designed to reduce travel time and
improve reliability include: adding transit bulbs/boarding islands and
accessible platforms; the addition of transit-only lanes; and installation
of traffic signals or other traffic calming measures at intersections.
A portion of the Bond may be allocated to fund the City’s share
of needed improvements to Caltrain’s infrastructure. This investment
will improve reliability.
C. IMPROVE SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY AT TRANSIT STOPS.
A portion of the Bond may be allocated to improve street conditions for people who have limited mobility or other disabilities that can
impede access to transit. The construction of infrastructure like new
escalators and boarding islands will improve the safety and accessibility of transit stations and stops and allow for level boarding for people
with mobility impairments.
D. IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY THROUGH
FOCUSED ENGINEERING EFFORTS AT HIGH-INJURY LOCATIONS.
A portion of the Bond may be allocated to deliver pedestrian
safety improvements at locations throughout the City where the majority of pedestrian injuries and fatalities occur. Pedestrian safety capital
projects will be designed and built to most effectively address the specific safety issues present at each intersection or corridor. Examples of
improvements include refuge islands, speed tables, and corner curb
bulb-outs.
E. INSTALL MODERN TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO IMPROVE
SAFETY AND MOBILITY.
A portion of the Bond may be allocated to more effectively manage traffic congestion in the City, improve the overall reliability of the
transit system, and improve pedestrian safety by replacing obsolete and
deteriorating traffic signal infrastructure. The program will install and
update traffic signals and install pedestrian countdown signals and
audible pedestrian signals to improve visibility and the overall safety
and efficiency of the roadway.
F. BUILD STREETS THAT ENABLE SAFE TRAVEL FOR
ALL USERS AND PROVIDE SAFER, WELL-DEFINED BIKEWAYS.
A portion of the Bond may be allocated to building streets,
including but not limited to curb bulb-outs, raised crosswalks, and
improved sidewalks at intersection corners; median islands; separated
bikeways, and bicycle parking. This program could also include installing basic infrastructure to decrease the cost of future projects, such as
underground signal conduit.
38-EN-N14-CP187
G. INVEST IN DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL CAPITAL
PROJECTS ALONG KEY TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
A portion of the Bond may be allocated to upgrade City streets
that anchor the transit system in order to increase transit speed and reliability, reduce congestion, and to ensure that people can safely and efficiently move around the City. The focus of this program is to fund corridor-wide projects that encourage street interconnectivity to create a
comprehensive, integrated, efficient and connected network for all
modes.
H. FIX MUNI FACILITIES TO IMPROVE VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE EFFICIENCY.
A portion of the Bond may be allocated to build new and
improve the conditions and operations of existing SFMTA facilities,
some of which are over 100 years old. The improvements will update
facility layouts and structures to streamline SFMTA’s capacity for
maintenance work, improve access to necessary parts and materials,
and enable reliable service delivery.
Section 4. BOND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES
The Bond shall include the following administrative rules and
principles:
A. OVERSIGHT. The proposed bond funds shall be subjected
to approval processes and rules described in the San Francisco Charter
and Administrative Code. Pursuant to S.F. Administrative Code 5.31,
the Citizen’s General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee shall conduct an annual review of bond spending, and shall provide an annual
report of the bond program to the Mayor and the Board.
B. TRANSPARENCY. The City shall create and maintain a
Web page outlining and describing the bond program, progress, and
activity updates. The City shall also hold an annual public hearing and
reviews on the bond program and its implementation before the Capital
Planning Committee and the Citizen’s General Obligation Bond
Oversight Committee.
Section 5. The estimated cost of the bond financed portion of the
project described in Section 2 above was fixed by the Board by the following resolution and in the amount specified below:
Resolution No. _140508_, $500,000,000.
Such resolution was passed by two-thirds or more of the Board
and approved by the Mayor of the City (the “Mayor”). In such resolution it was recited and found by the Board that the sum of money specified is too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City in addition to the other annual expenses or other funds
derived from taxes levied for those purposes and will require expenditures greater than the amount allowed by the annual tax levy.
The method and manner of payment of the estimated costs
described in this ordinance are by the issuance of bonds of the City not
exceeding the principal amount specified.
Such estimate of costs as set forth in such resolution is adopted
and determined to be the estimated cost of such bond financed
improvements and financing, as designed to date.
Section 6. The Bond Special Election shall be held and conducted and the votes received and canvassed, and the returns made and
the results ascertained, determined and declared as provided in this
ordinance and in all particulars not recited in this ordinance such election shall be held according to the laws of the State of California (the
“State”) and the Charter of the City (the “Charter”) and any regulations
adopted under State law or the Charter, providing for and governing
elections in the City, and the polls for such election shall be and remain
open during the time required by such laws and regulations.
Section 7. The Bond Special Election is consolidated with the
General Election scheduled to be held in the City on Tuesday,
November 4, 2014. The voting precincts, polling places and officers of
election for the November 4, 2014 General Election are hereby
adopted, established, designated and named, respectively, as the voting
precincts, polling places and officers of election for the Bond Special
Election called, and reference is made to the notice of election setting
forth the voting precincts, polling places and officers of election for the
November 4, 2014 General Election by the Director of Elections to be
published in the official newspaper of the City on the date required
under the laws of the State of California.
Legal Text – Proposition A
187
Section 8. The ballots to be used at the Bond Special Election
shall be the ballots to be used at the November 4, 2014 General
Election. The word limit for ballot propositions imposed by San
Francisco Municipal Elections Code Section 510 is waived. On the ballots to be used at the Bond Special Election, in addition to any other
matter required by law to be printed thereon, shall appear the following
as a separate proposition:
“SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION AND ROAD
IMPROVEMENT BOND. To construct, redesign and rebuild streets
and sidewalks and to make infrastructure repairs and improvements
that increase MUNI service reliability, ease traffic congestion, reduce
vehicle travel times, enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety, and
improve disabled access, shall the City and County of San Francisco
issue $500 million in general obligation bonds, subject to independent
citizen oversight and regular audits?”
Each voter to vote in favor of the issuance of the foregoing bond
proposition shall mark the ballot in the location corresponding to a
“YES” vote for the proposition, and to vote against the proposition
shall mark the ballot in the location corresponding to a “NO” vote for
the proposition.
Section 9. If at the Bond Special Election it shall appear that
two-thirds of all the voters voting on the proposition voted in favor of
and authorized the incurring of bonded indebtedness for the purposes
set forth in such proposition, then such proposition shall have been
accepted by the electors, and bonds authorized shall be issued upon the
order of the Board. Such bonds shall bear interest at a rate not exceeding applicable legal limits.
The votes cast for and against the proposition shall be counted
separately and when two-thirds of the qualified electors, voting on the
proposition, vote in favor, the proposition shall be deemed adopted.
Section 10. For the purpose of paying the principal and interest
on the bonds, the Board shall, at the time of fixing the general tax levy
and in the manner for such general tax levy provided, levy and collect
annually each year until such bonds are paid, or until there is a sum in
the Treasury of said City, or other account held on behalf of the
Treasurer of said City, set apart for that purpose to meet all sums coming due for the principal and interest on the bonds, a tax sufficient to
pay the annual interest on such bonds as the same becomes due and
also such part of the principal thereof as shall become due before the
proceeds of a tax levied at the time for making the next general tax
levy can be made available for the payment of such principal.
Section 11. This ordinance shall be published in accordance with
any State law requirements, and such publication shall constitute notice
of the Bond Special Election and no other notice of the Bond Special
Election hereby called need be given.
Section 12. The Board, having reviewed the proposed legislation, makes the following findings in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), California Public Resources
Code Sections 21000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines, 15 Cal.
Administrative Code Sections 15000 et seq., (“CEQA Guidelines”), and
San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 31 (“Chapter 31”):
(a) SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project.
(i) A portion of the bond proposal relates to funds for
SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (“TEP”). On March 27, 2014,
the San Francisco Planning Commission by Motion No. 19105 certified
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Transit Effectiveness
Project (“TEP FEIR”), and on March 28, the SFMTA Board of
Directors by Resolution No. 14-041 approved the TEP as described in
Resolution No. 14-041, and adopted findings under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines, and
Chapter 31 of the Administrative Code (“CEQA Findings”), including
findings rejecting alternatives, adopting a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program, and adopting a statement of overriding considerations. Planning Commission Motion No. 19105 and SFTMA Board
Resolution No. 14-041 are on file with the Clerk of the Board in File
No. 140509 and incorporated in this ordinance by reference.
(ii) The Planning Commission certification became final on
May 22, 2014, upon the withdrawal of the one appeal filed with the
188
Legal Text – Proposition A and B
Board of Supervisors that challenged the certification, which documentation is on file with the Clerk of the Board in File 140326. The Board
has reviewed and considered the CEQA Findings adopted by the
SFMTA Board, including the statement of overriding considerations
and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and hereby
adopts the CEQA Findings as its own. The Board additionally finds
that the portion of the bond proposal that relates to funds for the TEP
as reflected in this ordinance is consistent with the project as described
in the TEP FEIR.
(iii) Additionally, the Board finds that the portion of the
bond proposal that relates to funds for the TEP as reflected in this ordinance: (1) does not require major revisions in the TEP FEIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2)
no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the project analyzed in the TEP FEIR will be undertaken
that would require major revisions to the TEP FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase
in the severity of effects identified in the TEP FEIR; and (3) no new
information of substantial importance to the project analyzed in the
TEP FEIR has become available that would indicate: (i) the TEP will
have significant effects not discussed in the TEP FEIR; (ii) significant
environmental effects will be substantially more severe; (iii) mitigation
measures or alternatives found not feasible that would reduce one or
more significant effects have become feasible; or (iv) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those in the
TEP FEIR will substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment.
(b) For the reasons set forth in the letter from the Environmental
Review Officer of the Planning Department, dated May 28, 2014, a
copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 140509
and incorporated in this ordinance by reference, the Board finds that
the portion of the bond proposal that relates to funds for transportation
and road improvements other than funds for implementation of
improvements within the scope of the TEP is not subject to CEQA
because as the establishment of a government financing mechanism
that does not involve any commitment to specific projects to be constructed with bond funds, it is not a project as defined by CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines. The use of bond proceeds to finance any project
or portion of any project that relates to funds for transportation and
road improvements other than funds for implementation of improvements within the scope of the TEP will be subject to approval of the
Board upon completion of planning and any further required environmental review under CEQA.
Section 13. The Board finds and declares that the proposed Bond
is (i) in conformity with the priority policies of Section 101.1(b) of the
San Francisco Planning Code, (ii) in accordance with Section 4.105 of
the San Francisco Charter and Section 2A.53(f) of the San Francisco
Administrative Code, and (iii) consistent with the City’s General Plan,
and adopts the findings of the Planning Department, as set forth in the
General Plan Referral Report dated May 28, 2014, a copy of which is
on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 140509 and incorporates
such findings by reference.
Section 14. Under Section 53410 of the California Government
Code, the bonds shall be for the specific purpose authorized in this
ordinance and the proceeds of such bonds will be applied only for such
specific purpose. The City will comply with the requirements of
Sections 53410(c) and 53410(d) of the California Government Code.
Section 15. The Bonds are subject to, and incorporate by reference, the applicable provisions of San Francisco Administrative Code
Sections 5.30 – 5.36 (the “Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight
Committee”). Under Section 5.31 of the Citizens’ General Obligation
Bond Oversight Committee, to the extent permitted by law, one-tenth
of one percent (0.1%) of the gross proceeds of the Bonds shall be
deposited in a fund established by the Controller’s Office and appropriated by the Board of Supervisors at the direction of the Citizens’
General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee to cover the costs of
such committee.
38-EN-N14-CP188
Section 16. The time requirements specified in Section 2.34 of
the San Francisco Administrative Code are waived.
Section 17. The City hereby declares its official intent to reimburse prior expenditures of the City incurred or expected to be incurred
prior to the issuance and sale of any series of bonds in connection with
the Project (collectively, the “Future Bonds”). The Board hereby
declares the City’s intent to reimburse the City with the proceeds of the
Future Bonds for the expenditures with respect to the Project (the
“Expenditures” and each, an “Expenditure”) made on and after that
date that is no more than 60 days prior to adoption of this Resolution.
The City reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse
the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Future Bonds.
Each Expenditure was and will be either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax
principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure),
(b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Future Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a
grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the City so long as
such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or
indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the City. The
maximum aggregate principal amount of the Future Bonds expected to
be issued for the Project is $500,000,000. The City shall make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the City that evidences the City’s use of proceeds of the applicable series of Future
Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the
later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is
placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years
after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The City recognizes
that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,”
costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small
issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure)
and expenditures for construction projects of at least 5 years.
Section 18. The appropriate officers, employees, representatives
and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to do everything necessary or desirable to accomplish the calling and holding of
the Bond Special Election, and to otherwise carry out the provisions of
this ordinance.
Proposition B
Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters to amend the
Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to adjust the
required annual appropriation from the General Fund to the
Transportation Fund annually to reflect increases in the population
of San Francisco, subject to discontinuation by the Mayor if the
voters enact a new general tax on vehicles registered to a San
Francisco address, at an election to be held on November 4, 2014;
and making environmental findings.
Section 1. The Planning Department has determined that the
actions contemplated in this proposed Charter Amendment comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources
Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Said determination is on file with the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 140556 and is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on
November 4, 2014, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and
County by revising Section 8A.105 to read as follows:
NOTE:Unchanged Charter text and uncodified text are in
plain font.
Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman
font.
Deletions are strike-through italics Times New Roman
font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged
Charter subsections.
38-EN-N14-CP189
SEC. 8A.105. MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION FUND.
(a) There is hereby established a fund to provide a predictable,
stable, and adequate level of funding for the Agency, which shall be
called the Municipal Transportation Fund. The fund shall be maintained
separate and apart from all other City and County funds. Monies
therein shall be appropriated, expended, or used by the Agency solely
and exclusively for the operation including, without limitation, capital
improvements, management, supervision, maintenance, extension, and
day-to-day operation of the Agency, including any division subsequently created or incorporated into the Agency and performing transportation-related functions. Monies in the Fund may not be used for
any other purposes than those identified in this Section.
(b) Beginning with the fiscal year 2000-2001 and in each fiscal
year thereafter, there is hereby set aside to the Municipal Transportation
Fund the following:
1. An amount (the “Base Amount”) which shall be no less than
the amount of all appropriations from the General Fund, including all
supplemental appropriations, for the fiscal year 1998-1999 or the fiscal
year 1999-2000, whichever is higher (the “Base Year”), adjusted as
provided in subsection (c), below, for (1) the Municipal Railway; and
(2) all other City and County commissions, departments and agencies
providing services to the Municipal Railway, including the Department
of Human Resources and the Purchasing Department, for the provision
of those services. The Base Amount for the Department of Parking and
Traffic and the Parking Authority shall be established in the same fashion but using fiscal years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 for the services
being incorporated into the Agency.
2. Subject to the limitations and exclusions in Sections 4.113, the
revenues of the Municipal Railway, and, upon their incorporation into
the Agency, the revenues of the Department of Parking and Traffic, and
the Parking Authority; and
3. All other funds received by the City and County from any
source, including state and federal sources, for the support of the
Agency.
(c) The Base Amount shall initially be determined by the
Controller. Adjustments to the Base Amount shall be made as follows:
1. The Base Amount shall be adjusted for each year after fiscal
year 2000-2001 by the Controller based on calculations consistent from
year to year, by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City
and County discretionary revenues. In determining aggregate City and
County discretionary revenues, the Controller shall only include revenues received by the City which are unrestricted and may be used at the
option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful City
purpose. Errors in the Controller’s estimate of discretionary revenues
for a fiscal year shall be corrected by adjustment in the next year’s estimate.
2. An adjustment shall also be made for any increases in General
Fund appropriations to the Agency in subsequent years to provide continuing services not provided in the Base Year, but excluding additional
appropriations for one-time expenditures such as capital expenditures
or litigation judgments and settlements.
3. Commencing with the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2015,
the Controller shall also adjust the Base Amount annually by the percentage increase in the San Francisco population based on data from
the source(s) the Controller, in his or her sole discretion, finds most
reliable for the most recent available calendar year. The Controller’s
population growth adjustment shall be based on the greater of the
increase in daytime or night-time population. For any year in which the
Controller determines that neither the daytime nor night-time population has increased, the Controller shall make no adjustment under this
subparagraph 3 to the Base Amount. For purposes of the initial adjustment for the year commencing July 1, 2015, the Controller shall adjust
the Base Amount based on the increase in City daytime or night-time
population for the most recent ten-year period for which data are available instead of the most recent available calendar year. The Agency
shall use the amount of any increase in the Base Amount resulting from
the adjustment required by this subparagraph 3 exclusively as follows:
75 per cent shall be used to make transit system improvements to the
Legal Text – Proposition B
189
Municipal Railway to improve the system’s reliability, frequency of service, capacity, and state of good repair, and 25 per cent shall be used
for transportation capital expenditures to improve street safety for all
users.
(d) The Treasurer shall set aside and maintain the amounts
required to be set aside by this Section, together with any interest
earned thereon, in the Municipal Transportation Fund, and any amounts
unspent or uncommitted at the end of any fiscal year shall be carried
forward, together with interest thereon, to the next fiscal year for the
purposes specified in this Article.
(e) It is the policy of the City and County of San Francisco to
use parking-related revenues to support public transit. To that end, the
following parking-related revenues deposited in the Transportation
Fund shall be used to support the capital and operating expenses arising
from the Agency’s transit functions:
1. Revenues from parking meters, except those amounts collected from parking meters operated by the Recreation and Park
Department and the Port Commission and except to the extent that they
are required by law to be dedicated to other traffic regulation and control functions;
2. Revenues from off-street parking facilities under the jurisdiction of the Agency (excluding facilities owned by the Parking
Authority), including facilities leased to private owners and non-profit
corporations, except those amounts generated from any parking on or
below any land or facilities under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and
Park Department and except those amounts obligated by contract executed before 1993 to pay debt service;
3. Revenues from fines, forfeited bail, or penalties for parking
violations, except those amounts to be credited to the courthouse construction fund as provided in Administrative Code Section 10.100353.10.117-35.
(f) In addition, there is hereby set aside from the general revenues of the City and County and deposited in the Transportation Fund
to support the Agency’s transit services an amount equivalent to 80 percent of the revenues received from the City’s tax on occupation of
parking spaces. Additional amounts appropriated as a result of this subsection after July 1, 2008 which were not previously available to support transit service shall be used exclusively to:
1. support implementation of the transit service improvements
recommended by the Transit Effectiveness Project or any subsequent
system-wide route and service evaluation, with first priority given to
the hiring of full time on-going staff and expansion of training for
Agency employees, supervisors and managers; and
2. support the creation of a Labor-Management Implementation
and Service Improvement Committee consisting of the Director of
Transportation and a designated representative of each union representing Agency employees. This committee shall meet quarterly to discuss
implementation of this Section and ongoing system challenges.
Section 3. For any fiscal year commencing after the San
Francisco voters approve imposition of a Voter Approved Local
Assessment (as authorized by Part 5.7 of Division 2 of the California
Revenue and Taxation Code) on vehicles registered to a San Francisco
address as a new general tax generating revenues to be deposited in the
City’s General Fund and used for any lawful City purpose, as appropriated by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, after consulting with the Director of Transportation, the Mayor’s Budget
Director and the Controller, and after taking into account the City’s
projected revenues and expenditures in the City’s financial plans, may
by January 1 discontinue permanently further population-based adjustments to the Base Amount as prescribed in Subsection 8A.105(c)(3) by
issuing a written notice to the Director of Transportation, the Board of
Supervisors and the Controller. The Mayor’s issuance of this notice
shall be irrevocable and upon issuance of the notice the Controller’s
duties under Subsection 8A.105(c)(3) shall cease. Thereafter, the
Controller shall return the Base Amount to the amount it would have
been if Subsection 8A.105(c)(3) had not been enacted and continue to
adjust the Base Amount only according to the terms of Subsections
190
Legal Text – Proposition B and C
8A.105(c)(1) and 8A.105(c)(2) and any other applicable law. The
Mayor’s issuance of this notice shall have the effect of repealing
Subsection 8A.105(c)(3), making it thereafter inoperative with no further force and effect. Following the Mayor’s issuance of the notice, the
City Attorney shall take all actions necessary to remove Subsection
8A.105(c)(3) from the City Charter.
Proposition C
Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters to amend the
Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to: 1) extend the
Children’s Fund for 25 years and increase the set-aside from three
cents to four cents over a four-year period; 2) extend the Public
Education Enrichment Fund for 26 years; 3) create an Our
Children, Our Families Council and require preparation of a
Children and Families Plan; 4) create a City Rainy Day Reserve
and a School Rainy Day Reserve out of the existing Rainy Day
Reserve; and 5) make various technical and administrative changes
to the Funds, at an election to be held on November 4, 2014.
The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters
of the City and County, at an election to be held on November 4, 2014,
a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County by revising
Sections 9.113.5, 16.108, 16.123‑1, 16.123‑2, 16.123‑4, 16.123‑5,
16.123‑6, 16.123‑8, and 16.123‑10, by adding Sections 16.108‑1 and
16.127-1 through 16.127‑7, and by deleting Sections 16.123‑7 and
4.133, to read as follows:
NOTE:Unchanged Charter text and uncodified text are in
plain font.
Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman
font.
Deletions are strike-through italics Times New Roman
font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged
Charter subsections.
Section 1. Children and Families First Initiative; General
Preamble.
(a) We introduce this “Children and Families First Initiative” as
an integrated effort to reauthorize both the Children and Youth Fund
(formerly called the Children’s Fund) and the Public Education
Enrichment Fund (“PEEF”), establish the Our Children, Our Families
Council, and create a City Rainy Day Reserve and a School Rainy Day
Reserve out of the existing Rainy Day Reserve.
(b) To ensure the health and success of every San Francisco
child, it is imperative for San Francisco to invest further in the children
and families of our City.
(c) In order to advance a Citywide vision and long-term set of
goals to support the growing needs of children and families, City leaders, departments, the San Francisco Unified School District
(“SFUSD”), and community partners must come together to align practices; strengthen access to services; coordinate across agencies; and
develop a unified strategy.
(d) The people of the City and County of San Francisco previously supported the passage of the Children’s Fund Amendment in
1991 and 2001 in addition to overwhelmingly approving PEEF in 2004
with over 70 percent of the vote.
(e) While these initiatives dedicated funding for vital services
both in school and outside of school, the State of California remains
49th in per-pupil spending and addressing the level of unmet needs
remains a significant challenge. One-third of San Francisco’s African
American and Latino children live below the poverty line. And the
number of San Francisco children living in poverty increased by
14 percent over the past 5 years.
38-EN-N14-CP190
(f) SFUSD schools and San Francisco nonprofit communitybased organizations are the City’s most valuable public assets in terms
of supporting children, youth, and their families. Every San Francisco
student has the right to a quality public education and necessary support services that prepare them to pursue higher education, be competitive in a diversity of job markets and ultimately contribute to the future
health and vitality of San Francisco.
(g) San Francisco is experiencing a renaissance. However, economic inequity continues to grow, causing displacement and hardship
for families with the most need.
(h) The percentage of children under the age of 18 in San
Francisco has steadily declined. As of 2010, 13.4 percent of our total
population was under the age of 18, the lowest of any major city
nationwide. Additionally, over 10 percent of 1-4 year olds leave the
City in any given year with far fewer children of that age bracket moving in.
(i) The decline in children impacts the cultural and ethnic diversity that once made San Francisco a sanctuary for all, regardless of age,
race, or economic background.
(j) The loss of children and families also amounts to lost revenue
from less money spent on the local economy and a declining workforce.
(k) With the Children and Youth Fund and PEEF scheduled for
reauthorization through the unified Children and Families First
Initiative, the City must seize this opportunity to build on the previous
success of these funds and strengthen their capacity for the future.
(l) The previous investment of the Children and Youth Fund
allowed for the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families to
serve over 56,000 youth in FY 2012-2013, focusing on the children
with the most need, and with programs including child care, after
school academic and enrichment programs, violence prevention, wellness centers, and youth workforce development programs.
(m) In the last decade, critical PEEF Sports, Libraries, Arts and
Music funding ensured that every San Francisco public school has a
librarian, every elementary school offers art classes and engagement
opportunities, physical education classes are equipped and staffed by
credentialed instructors, and sports teams have more coaches and officials, along with upgraded uniforms and equipment.
(n) The Preschool for All program, initially established by the
PEEF in 2004, successfully served over 18,000 children. Studies have
shown that children who participated in Preschool for All demonstrated
significantly higher academic achievement than children who did not
participate.
(o) PEEF also enabled the Human Capital Support program to
recruit and retain a diversity of quality teachers to SFUSD. In the year
the program began, there were approximately 46 teacher vacancies on
the first day of school, whereas there were only three teacher vacancies
on the first day of school in FY 2012-2013.
(p) The reauthorization of the Children and Youth Fund and
PEEF through the unified Children and Families First Initiative is an
important step in pushing for a cultural and priority shift in our City.
(q) We have seen how increased investment and efficiency can
maximize results. With this in mind, this Charter Amendment also
establishes the “Our Children, Our Families Council” to bring together
department heads from the City and the SFUSD, and community stakeholders in order to build a platform that will place the needs of children
and families first in every policy decision.
(r) Collectively, we aim to put the needs and success of our children and families at the center of our City’s growth and ensure that
those with the most need are given the best opportunity to thrive.
Section 2. The Charter is hereby amended by revising
Sections 9.113.5, 16.108, 16.123‑1, 16.123‑2, 16.123‑4, 16.123‑5,
16.123‑6, 16.123‑8, and 16.123‑10, by adding Sections 16.108‑1 and
16.127-1 through 16.127‑7, and by deleting Sections 16.123‑7 and
4.133, to read as follows:
SEC. 16.108. CHILDREN AND YOUTH FUND CHILDREN’S
FUND.
38-EN-N14-CP191
(a) Preamble.
(1) By overwhelmingly reauthorizing the Children’s Fund
in 2000 with 74 percent approval, the people of the City and County of
San Francisco found and declared that the Children’s Fund (now to be
known as the Children and Youth Fund) is essential in ensuring the
health and success of every San Francisco child.
(2) The previous investment of the Children and Youth
Fund allowed for the Department of Children, Youth, and Their
Families to serve over 56,000 youth in FY 2012-2013, focusing on the
children with the most need.
(3) The Fund successfully stabilized and expanded services
for children, youth, and their families, while leveraging other
resources.
(4) Addressing the level of unmet need among children and
youth remains a significant challenge. The needs of San Francisco’s
children have been increasing:
(A) One-third of San Francisco’s African American
and Latino children live below the poverty line. The number of San
Francisco children in poverty has increased by 14% in the past 5 years.
(B) The federal poverty level for a family of four is
$23,000; adjusted to San Francisco, it is $35,000. Self-sufficiency in
San Francisco for a family of four is three times that amount, and over
half of all families cannot meet the self-sufficiency standard. The
Children and Youth Fund provides services that support families and
opportunities for children and youth that are essential to meeting their
needs and providing pathways out of poverty.
(C) State and federal cuts have significantly reduced
children and youth services in San Francisco, including funding for
child care, youth employment and high need disconnected transitionalaged youth.
(5) The reauthorization of the Children and Youth Fund
will enable the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families
(DCYF) to build on the previous success of the Fund and strengthen
DCYF’s capacity for the future, while fostering innovation and improving transparency and accountability.
(b) (a) Fund for Children and Youth Children’s Services.
Operative July 1, 2001, there is hereby established a fund to expand
children’s services, which shall be called the Children and Youth Fund
Children’s Fund (“Fund”). Monies in the Fund shall be expended or
used only to provide services for children and youth as provided in this
section.
(c) (b) Goals. The goals of expenditures from the Fund shall be:
The goals of expenditures from the Fund and the planning process created in this section of the Charter shall be:
(1) To ensure that San Francisco’s children are healthy,
ready to learn, succeed in school and live in stable, safe and supported
families and communities;
(2) To ensure that San Francisco is a family-friendly city
and to support families as an important part of the City population and
civic culture;
(3) To focus on the prevention of problems and on supporting and enhancing the strengths of children, youth and their families;
(4) To complement the City’s community development
efforts;
(5) To strengthen a community-based network of services in
all neighborhoods;
(6) To ensure that children and youth with the highest
needs receive maximum benefit from the Fund and that equity is a guiding principle of the funding process;
(7) To distribute funds based on best practices, and successful and innovative models in order to ensure maximum impact;
(8) To the maximum extent feasible, to distribute funds
equitably among services for all age groups – from infancy to transitional-aged youth;
(9) To ensure children are provided with gender-responsive
and culturally-competent services;
(10) To strengthen collaboration around shared outcomes
among all service providers for children, youth and their families,
Legal Text – Proposition C
191
including collaboration among public agencies and non-profit organizations; and
(11) To fill gaps in services and leverage other resources
whenever feasible.
(1) To ensure that San Francisco’s children are healthy,
ready to learn, succeed in school and live in stable, safe, and supported
families and communities;
(2) To reach children in all neighborhoods;
(3) To the maximum extent reasonable, to distribute funds
equitably among services for infants and preschoolers, elementary
school age children and adolescents;
(4) To focus on the prevention of problems and on supporting and enhancing the strengths of children, youth and their families;
(5) To strengthen collaboration between the City and
County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Unified School
District;
(6) To fill gaps in services and to leverage other resources
whenever feasible; and
(7) To foster projects initiated by San Francisco youth.
(d) (c) Amount. There is hereby set aside for the Fund, from the
revenues of the property tax levy, revenues in an amount equivalent to
an annual tax of three cents ($.03) per one hundred dollars ($100) of
assessed valuation for each fiscal year beginning with July 1, 2001June 30, 2002, and ending with July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015 July 1,
2015-June 30, 2016.
For Fiscal Year 2015-2016, there is hereby set aside for the
Fund, from the revenues of the property tax levy, revenues in an amount
equivalent to an annual tax of three and one-quarter cents ($.0325) per
one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation for each fiscal year.
For Fiscal Year 2016-2017, there is hereby set aside for the
Fund, from the revenues of the property tax levy, revenues in an amount
equivalent to an annual tax of three and one half cents ($.0350) per
one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation for each fiscal year.
For Fiscal Year 2017-2018, there is hereby set aside for the
Fund, from the revenues of the property tax levy, revenues in an amount
equivalent to an annual tax of three and three quarters cents ($.0375)
per one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation for each fiscal
year.
For Fiscal Year 2018-2019, and every fiscal year thereafter
through Fiscal Year 2040‑2041, there is hereby set aside for the Fund,
from the revenues of the property tax levy, revenues in an amount
equivalent to an annual tax of four cents ($.04) per one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation for each fiscal year.
If the 2010 U. S. Census shows that children make up a percentage of the population of the City and County that is at least two percentage points more than their percentage as shown in the 2000 U. S.
Census, then the amount of the property tax levy set aside under this
section shall be increased for each fiscal year beginning after publication of the 2010 Census. The increase shall be in an amount equal to:
one-quarter cent ($.0025) per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation, for each two full percentage points of increase in the percentage
of the City and County population that is made up of children. The
Fund shall be maintained separate and apart from all other City and
County funds and appropriated by annual or supplemental appropriation.
(e) (d) New Services. Monies in the Fund shall be used exclusively for the costs of services to children less than 18 years old provided as part of programs that predominantly serve children less than
18 years old and for Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth 18 through
24 years old. “Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth” are those who:
are homeless or in danger of homelessness; have dropped out of high
school; have a disability or other special needs, including substance
abuse; are low-income parents; are undocumented; are new immigrants and/or English Learners; are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (“LGBTQQ”); and/or are transitioning from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice or special
education system. above and beyond services funded from sources
other than the previous Children’s Fund prior to July 1, 2001. To this
192
Legal Text – Proposition C
end, monies Monies from the Fund shall not be appropriated or
expended for services that received any of the funds included in the
higher of the Controller’s baseline budget covering July 1, 2000-June
30, 2001 appropriations, or the Controller’s baseline budget covering
July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 appropriations, whether or not the cost of
such services increases. Nor shall monies from the Fund be appropriated or expended for services that substitute for or replace services
included or partially included in the higher of the two baseline budgets,
except and solely to the extent that the City ceases to receive federal,
state or private agency funds that the funding agency required to be
spent only on those services. The Controller’s baseline budget shall
mean the Controller’s calculation of the actual amount of City appropriations for services for children that would have been eligible to be
paid from the Fund but are paid from other sources.
(f) (e) Eligible Uses Services. The City shall only use monies
from the Fund for the following purposes: Services for children eligible
for Fund assistance shall include only:
(1) Services for children up to 18 years old and
Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth up to and including 24 years
old, including:
(A) (1) Affordable child care and early education;
(B) (2) Recreation, cultural and after-school programs, including without limitation, arts programs;
(C) (3) Health services, including prevention, education, and behavioral and mental health services, and pre-natal services
to pregnant women;
(D) (4) Training, employment and job placement;
(E) (5) Youth empowerment and leadership development;
(F) (6) Youth violence prevention programs;
(G) (7) Youth tutoring and educational enrichment
programs; and
(H) (8) Family and parent support services for families of children receiving other services from the Fund.;
(I) Support for collaboration among grantees to
enhance service delivery and provider capacity-building, and for community development efforts; and
(J) Services responsive to issues of gender, sexual orientation, and gender identification, including, but not limited to, services to address the needs of girls and LGBTQQ communities.
(2) Funding for the Department of Children, Youth and
Their Families (“DCYF”) and the Children, Youth and Their Families
Oversight and Advisory Committee created in Section 16.108‑1
(“Oversight and Advisory Committee”).
(3) Administration of the Fund and evaluation of Fund
goals and services.
(4) Technical assistance and capacity-building for service
providers and community-based partners.
(g) (f) Excluded Services. Notwithstanding subsection (f) (e),
services for children and Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth paid
for by the Fund shall not include:
(1) Services provided by the Police Department or other
law enforcement agencies, courts, the District Attorney, Public
Defender, City Attorney; or the Fire Department; detention or probation
services mandated by state or federal law; or public transportation;
(2) Any service that benefits children and Disconnected
Transitional-Aged Youth incidentally or as members of a larger population including adults;
(3) Any service for which a fixed or minimum level of
expenditure is mandated by state or federal law, to the extent of the
fixed or minimum level of expenditure;
(4) Acquisition of any capital item not for primary and
direct use by children and Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth;
(5) Acquisition (other than by lease for a term of ten years
or less) of any real property or land, or capital expenditures, or predevelopment or construction costs for housing; or
(6) Maintenance, utilities or any similar operating costs of
any facility not used primarily and directly by children and
38-EN-N14-CP192
Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth, or of any recreation or park
facility (including a zoo), library, or hospital, or housing; or
(7) Medical health services, other than prevention, education, and behavioral and mental health support services.
(h) (g) Baseline. The Fund shall be used exclusively to increase
the aggregate City appropriations and expenditures for those services
for children and Disconnected Transitional‑Aged Youth that are eligible
to be paid from the Fund (exclusive of expenditures mandated by state
or federal law). To this end, the City shall not reduce the amount of
such City appropriations for eligible services (not including appropriations from the Fund and exclusive of expenditures mandated by state or
federal law) in any of the fifteen years during which funds are required
to be set aside under this section below the amount so appropriated for
the fiscal year 2000-2001 (“the base year”) as set forth in the
Controller’s baseline budget, as adjusted (“the base amount”).
The Controller shall calculate City appropriations made in fiscal
year 2013-2014 for services for Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth
aged 18 through 24 years. Beginning with fiscal year 2014‑2015, that
amount shall be added to the base amount and adjusted as provided
below. The City shall not reduce the amount of such City appropriations for services for Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth (not
including appropriations from the Fund and exclusive of expenditures
mandated by state or federal law) under this section below the amount
so appropriated for fiscal year 2013-2014, as adjusted.
The base amount shall be adjusted for each year after the base
year by the Controller based on calculations consistent from year to
year by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City and
County discretionary revenues. In determining aggregate City and
County discretionary revenue, the Controller shall only include revenues received by the City and County that are unrestricted and may be
used at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any
lawful City purpose. The method used by the Controller to determine
discretionary revenues shall be consistent with method used by the
Controller to determine the Library and Children’s Baseline
Calculations dated June 20, 2000, which the Controller shall place on
file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 000952. Errors in the
Controller’s estimate of discretionary revenues for a fiscal year shall be
corrected by an adjustment in the next year’s estimate. Within 90 days
following the end of each fiscal year through Fiscal Year 2040‑2041
through 2014-2015, the Controller shall calculate and publish the actual
amount of City appropriations for services for children and
Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth that would have been eligible to
be paid from the Fund but are paid from other sources, separately identifying expenditures mandated by state or federal law.
(i) Five-Year Planning Cycle. The City shall appropriate monies
from the Fund according to a five-year planning process. This process
is intended to: (1) increase transparency, accountability, and public
engagement; (2) provide time and opportunities for community participation and planning; (3) ensure program stability; and (4) maximize
the effectiveness of the services funded.
(1) Year 1 - Community Needs Assessment. During every
fifth fiscal year beginning with Fiscal Year 2015-2016, DCYF shall
conduct a Community Needs Assessment (CNA) to identify services to
receive monies from the Fund. The CNA should include qualitative and
quantitative data sets collected through interviews, focus groups, surveys, or other outreach mechanisms to determine service gaps in programming for children, youth, and families. Subject to the budgetary
and fiscal provisions of the Charter, DCYF may contract with consultants and outside experts for such services as the department may
require to prepare the CNA. DCYF shall undertake a robust community
process in every supervisorial district, soliciting input from a diverse
cross-section of parents, youth, non-profit organizations, and other key
stakeholders to develop the CNA:
(A) DCYF shall develop a plan for how to conduct
the CNA. The CNA shall include an equity analysis of services and
resources for parents, children, and youth. DCYF shall develop a set of
equity metrics to be used to establish a baseline of existing services and
resources in low-income neighborhoods and disadvantaged communi-
38-EN-N14-CP193
ties, compared to services and resources available in the City as a
whole. The outreach for the CNA shall create opportunities for parents,
youth, nonprofit agencies, and other members of the public, to provide
input. By September 1, DCYF shall provide its plan for conducting the
CNA to the Oversight and Advisory Committee, the Service Provider
Working Group created in Section 16.108-1(e), and the Board of
Supervisors. The plan shall be a public document.
(B) By March 1, DCYF shall complete a draft CNA
and provide this draft to the Oversight and Advisory Committee and the
Service Provider Working Group for review. DCYF shall also provide
the draft CNA to interested City departments, including the First Five
Commission, the Office of Early Care and Education (or any successor
entity), the Recreation and Park Commission, the Health Commission,
the Human Services Commission, the Youth Commission, the Juvenile
Probation Commission, the Adult Probation Department, the
Commission on the Status of Women, the Police Commission, the
Library Commission, and the Arts Commission.
(C) By April 1, DCYF shall submit a final version of
the CNA to the Oversight and Advisory Committee and the Board of
Supervisors. The final version may incorporate any comments or suggestions made by the public or by the agencies that received copies of
the draft CNA.
(D) By May 1, the Oversight and Advisory Committee
shall provide input on, approve or disapprove the CNA. If the Oversight
and Advisory Committee disapproves the report, DCYF may modify
and resubmit the report.
(E) By June 1, the Board of Supervisors shall consider and approve or disapprove, or modify, the CNA. If the Board disapproves the CNA, DCYF may modify and resubmit the CNA, provided,
however, that the City may not expend monies from the Fund until the
Board of Supervisors has approved the CNA.
(2) Year 2 – Services and Allocation Plan. During every fifth
fiscal year beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017, DCYF shall prepare
a Services and Allocation Plan (“SAP”) to determine services eligible
to receive monies from the Fund. DCYF shall use the following process
to prepare the SAP:
(A) DCYF shall prepare a draft SAP in consultation
with interested City departments, including the First Five Commission,
the Office of Early Care and Education (or any successor entity), the
Recreation and Park Commission, the Health Commission, the Human
Services Commission, the Youth Commission, the Juvenile Probation
Commission, the Adult Probation Department, the Commission on the
Status of Women, the Police Commission, the Library Commission, and
the Arts Commission, as well as the San Francisco Unified School
District, community-based service providers, parents, children, youth,
and other members of the public. The SAP must:
(i) Demonstrate consistency with the CNA and
with Citywide vision and goals for children and families;
(ii) Include all services for children and
Disconnected Transitional‑Aged Youth;
(iii) Be outcome-oriented and include goals and
measurable and verifiable objectives and outcomes;
(iv) Include capacity-building and evaluation of
services as separate funding areas;
(v) State how services will be coordinated and
have specific amounts allocated towards specific goals, service models,
populations and neighborhoods;
(vi) Include funding for youth-initiated projects
totaling at least 3 percent of the total proposed expenditures from the
Fund for the cycle;
(vii) Include evaluation data from the previous
funding cycle and the details of the Children and Youth Baseline; and,
(viii) Incorporate strategies to coordinate and
align all services for children funded by all governmental or private
entities and administered by the City, whether or not those services are
eligible to receive monies from the Fund.
(B) The SAP shall include an equity analysis of services and resources for parents, children and youth. Using the equity
Legal Text – Proposition C
193
metrics developed for preparation of the CNA, the SAP shall compare
proposed new, augmented, and coordinated services and resources for
low-income neighborhoods and disadvantaged communities with services and resources available to the City as a whole.
(C) Subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of
the Charter, DCYF may contract with consultants and outside experts
for such services as the department may require to prepare the SAP,
including the equity analysis of services and resources for parents, children and youth.
(D) By March 1, DCYF shall provide the draft SAP to
the Oversight and Advisory Committee and the Service Provider
Working Group. DCYF shall also provide the draft SAP to the San
Francisco Unified School District and interested City departments,
including the First Five Commission, the Office of Early Care and
Education (or any successor entity), the Recreation and Park
Commission, the Health Commission, the Human Services Commission,
the Youth Commission, the Juvenile Probation Commission, the Adult
Probation Department, the Commission on the Status of Women, the
Police Commission, the Library Commission and the Arts Commission.
(E) By April 1, DCYF shall submit a final version of
SAP to the Oversight and Advisory Committee and the Board of
Supervisors. The final version may incorporate any comments or suggestions made by the public or by the agencies that received copies of
the draft SAP.
(F) By May 1, the Oversight and Advisory Committee
shall approve or disapprove the SAP. If the Oversight and Advisory
Committee disapproves the SAP, DCYF may modify and resubmit the
SAP.
(G) By June 1, the Board of Supervisors shall consider and approve or disapprove, or modify, the SAP. If the Board disapproves the SAP, DCYF may modify and resubmit the SAP, provided,
however, that the City may not expend monies from the Fund until the
SAP has been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
(H) During subsequent years of the planning cycle,
DCYF, with the approval of the Oversight and Advisory Committee and
the Board of Supervisors, may amend the SAP to address emerging
needs.
(3) Year 3 – Selection of Contractors. During every fifth
fiscal year beginning with Fiscal Year 2017-2018, DCYF shall conduct
competitive solicitations for services to be funded from the Fund.
(4) Year 4 – Service Cycle Begins. Contracts for services
shall start on July 1 of Year 4 of the planning cycle, beginning with
Fiscal Year 2018-2019. During subsequent years of the planning cycle,
DCYF, with the approval of the Oversight and Advisory Committee,
may issue supplemental competitive solicitations to address amendments to the SAP and emerging needs. All expenditures for services
from the Fund shall be consistent with the most recent CNA and SAP.
(5) DCYF may recommend, and the Oversight and
Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors may approve,
changes to the due dates and timelines provided in this subsection (i).
The Board of Supervisors shall approve such changes by ordinance.
(h) Three-Year Planning Cycle. To provide time for community
participation and planning, and to ensure program stability, appropriations from the Fund for all fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2004
shall be made pursuant to a three-year planning cycle as set forth in
subsections (h) through (l). During every third fiscal year beginning
with the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the City shall prepare a Community
Needs Assessment to determine services eligible to receive moneys from
the Fund. During every third fiscal year beginning with the 2002-2003
fiscal year, the City shall prepare a Children’s Services and Allocation
Plan (“the Plan”), based on the Community Needs Assessment
approved during the previous year. The Board of Supervisors may modify an existing Community Needs Assessment or Plan, provided that any
modification shall occur only after a noticed public hearing. All appropriations from the Fund shall be consistent with the most recent Plan,
provided that the Board of Supervisors may approve an amendment to
the Plan at the same time it approves an appropriation.
194
Legal Text – Proposition C
(i) Community Needs Assessment and Children’s Services and
Allocation Plan.
(1) The Community Needs Assessment and the Plan shall
be in writing, shall be made available to the public in draft form not
later than January 31 of each fiscal year in which they are required,
shall be presented by March 31 of each such fiscal year to the commissions listed in subsection (m)(3) for review and comment, and by April
30 of each such fiscal year shall be presented to the Board of
Supervisors for approval.
(2) Prior to preparation of each draft Community Needs
Assessment, the City shall hold at least one public hearing in each geographical area defined in Charter Section 13.110. The City shall also
make available opportunities for parents, youth, and agencies receiving
monies from the Fund to provide information for the Community Needs
Assessment. The Community Needs Assessment shall include the results
of a Citywide survey of parents and youth to be conducted by the
Controller every three years.
(3) The Plan shall include all services for children furnished or funded by the City or funded by another governmental or private entity and administered by the City, whether or not they received
or may receive monies from the Fund. The Plan shall be outcome-oriented and include goals, measurable and verifiable objectives and measurable and verifiable outcomes.
(4) The Plan shall state how all services receiving money
from the Fund will be coordinated with other children’s services. The
Plan shall specify amounts of funding to be allocated: (i) toward
achieving specified goals, measurable and verifiable objectives and
measurable and verifiable outcomes, (ii) to specified service models;
and (iii) for specific populations and neighborhoods. The Plan shall
also state the reasons for the allocations and demonstrate how the allocations are consistent with the Community Needs Assessment. A minimum of three percent of the funding allocated under the Plan shall be
for youth-initiated projects.
(j) Evaluation. DCYF shall provide for the evaluation on a regular basis of all services funded through the Fund, and shall prepare
on a regular basis an Evaluation and Data Report for the Oversight
and Advisory Committee. Subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions
of the Charter, DCYF may contract with consultants and outside
experts for such services as the department may require to conduct
such evaluations and to prepare the Evaluation and Data Report. The
Plan shall include an evaluation of services that received money from
the Fund at any time during the last three fiscal years. The evaluation
shall involve those who use the funded services and other parents and
youth.
(k) Failure of Board to Act. If the Board of Supervisors has not
approved a Community Needs Assessment before the first day of the fiscal year during which the Plan is to be prepared, the Plan shall be
based on the Community Needs Assessment as originally submitted to
the Board of Supervisors.
(k) (l) Selection of Contractors. The Oversight and Advisory
Committee shall recommend standards and procedures for the selection
of contractors to be funded from the Fund. It shall be the policy of the
City to use competitive solicitation processes where appropriate and to
give priority to the participation of non-profit agencies. Except for services provided by City employees, the Fund shall be expended through
contractors selected based on their responses to one or more requests
for proposals issued by the City. The City shall award contracts to
coincide with the City’s fiscal year starting July 1.
(l) (m) Implementation.
(1) In implementation of this Section 16.108 section, facilitating public participation and maximizing availability of information
to the public shall be primary goals.
(2) So long as there exists within the executive branch of
City government a Department of Children, Youth and Their Families,
or an equivalent department or agency as its successor, that department DCYF shall administer the Children’s Fund and prepare the CNA
Community Needs Assessment and the SAP Plan pursuant to this
Section 16.108 section. If no such department or agency exists, the
38-EN-N14-CP194
Mayor shall designate a department or other City body to administer
the Children’s Fund pursuant to this section.
(3) In addition to all other hearings otherwise required, the
Recreation and Park, Juvenile Probation, Youth, Health and Human
Services Commissions shall each hold at least one separate or joint
hearing each fiscal year to discuss issues relating to this section. The
Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, or other agency as
described above in section (m)(2), shall consult with the Recreation
and Park Department, Arts Commission, Juvenile Probation
Department, Unified School District, Health Department, Department
of Human Services, Commission on the Status of Women, Police
Department, Library Department and Municipal Transportation
Agency in preparation of portions of the Community Needs Assessment
and the Plan that relate to their respective activities or areas of responsibility.
(3) (4) The Board of Supervisors may by ordinance implement
this Section 16.108 section.
(n) Advisory Committee. There shall be a Children’s Fund
Citizens’ Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) that shall consist of
15 members, each appointed by the Mayor to a three-year term, to
serve at the Mayor’s pleasure. At least three members of the Committee
shall be parents and at least three members shall be less than 18 years
old at the time of appointment. For each of the following areas, there
shall be at least one Committee member with professional expertise in
that area: early childhood development, childcare, education, health,
recreation and youth development. The Committee shall meet at least
quarterly, and shall advise the department or agency that administers
the Children’s Fund and the Mayor concerning the Children’s Fund.
The Committee shall convene by July 1, 2001. Each member of the
Committee shall receive copies of each proposed Community Needs
Assessment and each Plan (including the evaluation required as part of
the Plan). Members of the Committee shall serve without pay, but may
be reimbursed for expenses actually incurred.
(o) Unspent Funds. All unspent funds in the Children’s Fund
created by former Charter Section 16.108 shall be transferred to the
Children’s Fund established herein.
(m) (p) Effect of Procedural Errors. No appropriation, contract
or other action shall be held invalid or set aside by reason of any error,
including without limitation any irregularity, informality, neglect or
omission, in carrying out procedures specified in subsections (i) (h)
through (l) (n) unless a court finds that the party challenging the action
suffered substantial injury from the error and that a different result
would have been probable had the error not occurred.
SEC. 16.108-1. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES
OVERSIGHT AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Creation. There shall be a Children, Youth and Their
Families Oversight and Advisory Committee (“Oversight and Advisory
Committee”) to review the governance and policies of the Department
of Children, Youth and Their Families (“DCYF”), to monitor and participate in the administration of the Children and Youth Fund as provided in Charter Section 16.108 (“Fund”), and to take steps to ensure
that the Fund is administered in a manner accountable to the community.
(b) Responsibilities.
(1) The Oversight and Advisory Committee shall develop
recommendations for DCYF and the Fund regarding outcomes for children and youth services, the evaluation of services, common data systems, a process for making funding decisions, program improvement
and capacity-building of service providers, community engagement in
planning and evaluating services, leveraging dollars of the Fund and
the use of the Fund as a catalyst for innovation. The Oversight and
Advisory Committee shall promote and facilitate transparency in the
administration of the Fund.
(2) As provided in Section 16.108, the Oversight and
Advisory Committee shall review and approve the planning process for
the Community Needs Assessment (“CNA”) and the final CNA, the
Services and Allocation Plan, and DCYF’s overall spending plan
38-EN-N14-CP195
(including, as separate items, approval of the departmental budget and
of DCYF’s proposed grants as a package), and shall review the annual
Data and Evaluation Report. Nothing in this Section shall limit the
authority of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to propose,
amend, and adopt a budget under Article IX of the Charter.
(3) The Oversight and Advisory Committee shall participate in the evaluation of the Director of DCYF, assist in recruitment for
the Director when the position is vacant, and may recommend candidates to the Mayor.
(4) The Oversight and Advisory Committee shall establish
and maintain a Service Provider Working Group as provided in subsection (e).
(5) The Oversight and Advisory Committee shall meet at
least six times a year.
(c) Composition. The Oversight and Advisory Committee shall
have eleven members. The Mayor shall appoint members for Seats 1
through 6. The Board of Supervisors shall appoint members for Seats 7
through 11. The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors shall appoint the
initial members of the Committee by July 1, 2015. The terms of the initial appointees to the Committee shall commence on the date of the first
meeting of the Committee, which may occur when at least eight members have been appointed and are present.
(d) Implementation. The Board of Supervisors shall further provide by ordinance for the membership, structure, functions, appointment criteria, terms and support of the Oversight and Advisory
Committee. The Board of Supervisors shall adopt such legislation to be
effective by July 1, 2015.
(e) Service Provider Working Group. The Oversight and
Advisory Committee shall create a Service Provider Working Group
(“Working Group”) to advise the Oversight and Advisory Committee
on funding priorities, policy development, the planning cycle, evaluation design and plans, and any other issues of concern to the Working
Group related to the Fund or the responsibilities of DCYF or other
departments receiving monies from the Fund.
The Working Group shall engage a broad cross-section of service providers in providing information, education and consultation to
the Oversight and Advisory Committee. All members of the Working
Group shall be actively providing services to children, youth and their
families. The Working Group shall be supported by DCYF staff, and
shall meet at least four times a year.
The Oversight and Advisory Committee shall appoint two initial
co-chairs of the Working Group, who shall be responsible for developing the structure of the Working Group and facilitating the meetings.
After the terms of the initial co‑chairs expire, the Working Group shall
select its own chairs. Working Group meetings shall be open and
encourage widespread participation.
SEC. 16.123-1. PUBLIC EDUCATION ENRICHMENT FUND;
PREAMBLE.
(a) The people of the City and County of San Francisco find and
declare that:
(1) San Francisco Unified School District (“SFUSD”)
schools are one of the City’s most valuable public assets and every San
Francisco student has the right to a quality public education that prepares them to pursue higher education, be competitive in a diversity of
job markets, and ultimately contribute to the future health and vitality
of San Francisco;
(2) City funding for SFUSD public schools is an essential
and valuable investment in our youth, as validated by San Francisco
voters who overwhelmingly passed (by 71 percent) the ballot measure
creating the Public Education Enrichment Fund (“PEEF”) in 2004;
(3) The State of California is currently 49th in per pupil
spending, and without the PEEF, SFUSD would fall to fifth place in per
pupil spending among comparable California school districts;
(4) Urban public schools have the greatest need for comprehensive educational programs-including preschool programs, arts
and music programs, sports activities, and after school programs-but
often have the fewest resources to provide them;
Legal Text – Proposition C
195
(5) In the last decade, the PEEF enabled all San Francisco
public school students to benefit from once-underfunded and diminishing critical programs and services including but not limited to: quality
physical education and athletics programs, fully functioning libraries
at every school staffed by credentialed librarians, arts and music teachers and programs, wellness and behavioral support staffing and translation and interpretation services;
(6) In the last decade, critical PEEF funding for sports,
libraries, arts and music ensured that every San Francisco public
school has a librarian, all elementary schools offer art classes and
engagement opportunities, physical education courses are equipped
and staffed by credentialed teachers, and sports teams have more
coaches and officials along with upgraded uniforms and equipment;
(7) The Preschool for All program, initially established by
the ballot measure that adopted the PEEF in 2004, successfully served
over 18,000 children since the program’s creation, with enrollment
increasing year to year;
(8) Studies have shown that children who participated in
Preschool for All demonstrated significantly higher academic achievement than children who did not participate;
(9) While the Preschool for All program made great strides
in closing the opportunity gap for low-income early age children, the
current need far exceeds the current level of services that the City is
able to provide;
(10) The general education portion of the PEEF enabled
SFUSD to triple the number of students enrolled in grades K-8 receiving individual and/or group health and mental health services through
student support professionals over the past five years, with the number
of high school students receiving five or more counseling sessions at
the Wellness Center more than doubling in the last 10 years;
(11) The general education portion of the PEEF enabled
SFUSD to nearly double the number of high schools seniors completing two City College of San Francisco courses;
(12) PEEF enabled the Human Capital Support program to
recruit and retain a diversity of quality teachers to SFUSD. In the year
the program began, there were approximately 46 teacher vacancies on
the first day of school, whereas there were only three teacher vacancies
on the first day of school in FY 2012-2013;
(13) SFUSD has seen a resurgence in enrollment in recent
years and recognition of the opportunities now available to the young
people of San Francisco;
(14) The choices businesses make about where to locate
are impacted by the quality of public services the City provides, including public safety, transportation and education; a free quality public
education can serve as a key factor for businesses to attract and retain
workers in our community;
(15) Since 2000, SFUSD has made strong improvements in
achievement measures and financial management; and during the past
decade, SFUSD has built an exemplary record for effective and responsible management of voter-approved parcel taxes and bond measures.
Financial and programmatic reviews of PEEF expenditures conducted
by the Controller’s Office have verified that expenditures were spent in
accordance with SFUSD’s spending plans and Charter requirements;
and
(16) As the economy begins to recover, now is the time to
continue to invest in our children’s future to maintain and grow thriving
public schools, before declines begin to erode the progress the SFUSD
has made.
1. Quality public education is highly correlated with higher
earnings potential, reduced crime, lower rates of teen pregnancy and
substance abuse, and greater self-esteem;
2. Urban public schools have the greatest need for comprehensive educational programs-including preschool programs, arts and
music programs, sports activities, and after school programs-but often
have the fewest resources to provide them;
3. While California once led the nation in public school
spending and performance, investments have greatly declined. Despite
its high cost of living, San Francisco per pupil spending ranks 34th
196
Legal Text – Proposition C
38-EN-N14-CP196
among 43 comparable central City U.S. public school districts of similar size. As of 2001, adjusted for cost-of-living, teacher salaries for the
San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) ranked 99th of 100
metropolitan areas;
4. SFUSD enrollment has dropped in recent years as families have left San Francisco in search of affordable neighborhoods with
high-quality public schools;
5. The choices businesses make about where to locate
include the quality of public services the City provides, including public
safety, transportation and education;
6. Since 2000, the SFUSD has made strong improvements
in achievement measures and financial management; and
7. As the economy begins to recover, now is the time to
invest in our children’s future, before further declines begin to erode
the progress the SFUSD has made.
(b) This measure may be referred to as “The Public Education
Enrichment Fund Arts, Music, Sports, and Pre-School for Every Child
Amendment of 2014 2003.”
Fiscal Year 2005-06
$10 million
Fiscal Year 2006-07
$20 million
Fiscal Year 2007-08
$30 million
Fiscal Year 2008-09
$45 million
Fiscal Year 2009-10
$60 million
(d) Annual Contributions to the Fund-FY 2010-11 and
Thereafter through FY 2014-15. For Fiscal Years 2010-11 and thereafter through FY 2014-15, the City’s annual contribution to the Public
Education Enrichment Fund shall equal its total contribution for the
prior year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2009-2010, adjusted for the estimated increase or decrease in discretionary General Fund revenues for
the year.
(e) Audit Requirements. All disbursements from the Fund and
from the baseline appropriations shall be subject to periodic audit by
the Controller. The San Francisco Unified School District and the
Office of Early Care and Education, or any successor entity (“OECE”)
the First Five Commission shall agree to such audits as a condition of
receiving disbursements from the Fund.
SEC. 16.123-2. PUBLIC EDUCATION ENRICHMENT FUND.
(a) Creating the Fund. There shall be a Public Education
Enrichment Fund. The City shall each year appropriate monies to the
Public Education Enrichment Fund according to subsections (b), (c),
and (d), below. In determining whether the City has met its annual obligation to the Fund, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors may consider both direct financial support and the cash value of any in-kind
support services, as described in Section 16.123-5, provided by the City
to the San Francisco Unified School District and the Children and
Families First Commission (hereinafter the “First Five Commission”)
or any successor agency, provided that at least two-thirds of the City’s
contribution to the Fund each year shall be comprised of direct financial support necessary to meet the requirements of Sections 16.123-3
and 16.123-4 of this measure.
(b) Baseline Appropriations. The Fund shall be used exclusively to increase the aggregate City appropriations to and expenditures
for the San Francisco Unified School District. To this end, the City
shall not reduce the amount of such City appropriations (not including
appropriations from the Fund and exclusive of expenditures mandated
by state or federal law) in any year of the eleven years during which
funds are required to be set aside under this Section below the amount
so appropriated for Fiscal Year the fiscal year 2002-2003 (“the base
year”). These baseline appropriations shall be separate from the City’s
annual contributions to the Public Education Enrichment Fund under
subsection (c), and shall be appropriated by the City to the School
District each year through and including Fiscal Year 2040-2041 during
the term of this measure for the same purposes and in the same relative
proportions among those purposes as in the base year, as certified by
the Controller.
The amount of the City’s baseline appropriations to the School
District shall be adjusted for each year after the base year by the
Controller based on calculations consistent from year to year by the
percentage increase or decrease in City and County discretionary
General Fund revenues. In determining City and County discretionary
General Fund revenues, the Controller shall only include revenues
received by the City and County that are unrestricted and may be used
at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful
City purpose. Errors in the Controller’s estimate of discretionary revenues for a fiscal year shall be corrected by an adjustment in the next
year’s estimate. Using audited financial results for the prior fiscal year,
the Controller shall calculate and publish the actual amount of City
appropriations that would have been required under this baseline for
the School District.
(c) Annual Contributions to the Fund FY 2005-2006 through
FY 2009-2010. In addition to the annual baseline appropriation provided above, the City shall, for years two through six of this measure,
contribute the following amounts to the Public Education Enrichment
Fund:
SEC. 16.123-4. UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO EARLY EDUCATION
PRESCHOOL.
(a) Universal Access to Early Education Preschool. It shall be
the goalpolicy of the City and County of San Francisco to provide all
children between the ages of three and five years four-year-old children
who are City residents the opportunity to attend quality early education
programs, giving priority to four year old children. preschool, and it
shall be It is the goal of the people in adopting this measure to expand
such access beginning do so no later than September 1, 2015, 2009
building upon the work of the City’s existing Preschool for All program.
This portion of the Fund may also be used to support the development
of services for children from birth to three years old.
(b) Planning Process. No later than January 1, 2016 September
1, 2004, the OECE the First Five Commission, in consultation with the
San Francisco Child Care Childcare Planning and Advisory Council,
the First Five Commission, the San Francisco Unified School District,
the San Francisco Human Services Agency, the San Francisco
Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, and community
stakeholders, shall submit to the Board of Supervisors a proposal for a
expanding quality universal early education preschool program for San
Francisco. The Board of Supervisors shall approve the plan by resolution; if the Board does not approve the plan, it may refer the plan back
to the OECE First Five Commission for revision.
In preparing the plan, the OECE may consult with the First Five
Commission to shall develop universal early education preschool funding guidelines consistent with the findings of the 2012-2013 Child Care
Childcare Planning and Advisory Council’s San Francisco Child Care
Childcare Needs Assessment, the 2012 San Francisco Citywide Plan
for Early Education, First 5 San Francisco’s 2013 Evaluations of the
Preschool for All program, the San Francisco Unified School District’s
2014 Kindergarten Readiness Data, and the Office of Early Care and
Education’s 2014 Financing Study.
The plan shall include goals for the quality of early care and
education programs, shall align with emerging developments in state
and/or federal early care and education policy, and shall address the
professional development needs of center-based and family child care
providers. “Professional development” as used in this Section 16.123-4
includes education, technical assistance and coaching, training, and
supports, and shall be aligned with the City’s goals for early care and
education program quality. Additionally, in preparing the plan, the
OECE shall develop including guidelines designed to meet neighborhood-specific needs, including school readiness, subsidy availability,
children’s dual language development, facility development, parent
engagement and education, inclusion of children with special needs,
such as subsidies, new facility development, and provider support for
both family child care childcare homes and child care childcare centers. Such funding guidelines also shall address the unmet need for universal early education preschool and child care childcare slots in specific City neighborhoods.
38-EN-N14-CP197
The plan shall also include an equity analysis of services and
resources for children and families. The OECE Citizens’ Advisory
Committee shall develop a set of equity metrics to be used to compare
existing services and resources in low-income and disadvantaged communities with services and resources available in the City as a whole.
Following the Board of Supervisors’ approval of the plan, the
OECE, in collaboration with the San Francisco Unified School District
and First Five Commission, shall develop an evaluation plan for tracking the results of the City’s investments in early care and education.
(c) Annual Disbursements. For Fiscal Year 2014‑2015, Each
year during the term of this measure, the City shall appropriate onethird of the money in the Public Education Enrichment Fund to the
First Five Commission for universal preschool programs administered
by the Commission. Beginning July 1, 2015, the City each year shall
appropriate one-third of the money in the Public Education Enrichment
Fund to the OECE for early education programs to be administered by
that office or entity or its successor.
(d) Citizens Advisory Committee. No later than March 1, 2015,
the Board of Supervisors shall establish, by ordinance, a Citizens
Advisory Committee to provide recommendations to the OECE on universal access to early education and the funds appropriated under this
Section.
SEC. 16.123-5. DIRECT FINANCIAL OTHER CITY SUPPORT
FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
(a) In-Kind Support. Not later than one year after the effective
date of this measure, the City and the School District shall identify
areas of potential in-kind support that the City could provide to the
School District free of charge or at substantially reduced rates. In-kind
support, for these purposes, may include, but is not limited to:
Learning support services, including health, counseling, social work, and nutrition services;
Financial support services;
Telecommunication and information services;
Construction management services;
Utility services;
Transportation services;
Legal services; and
Public safety services.
(b) Planning Process. No later than six months after the effective date of this measure, the School District shall submit to the Board
of Supervisors proposals for in-kind services that could be provided by
the City to the District to further the educational goals and operations
of the District. The Board shall distribute those proposals to all City
departments having expertise in providing or capability to provide such
in-kind services, and no later than nine months after the effective date
of this measure, the departments will respond to the Board with proposals to provide such in-kind services to the District. The School District
may use any direct financial support provided under this Section to hire
consultants to help identify possible in-kind services. The Board of
Supervisors may, by ordinance, provide for continuation of this planning process during the subsequent term of the measure.
(a) (c) Annual Disbursements. Each year through and including Fiscal Year 2040‑2041 during the term of this measure, the City
shall appropriate one-third of the money in provide direct financial
assistance from the Public Education Enrichment Fund to the San
Francisco Unified School District as direct financial support. , in an
amount equal to one-third of the money in the Fund, or in-kind support
services of equal value.
(b) (d) Permissible Uses. The San Francisco Unified School
District may expend funds provided as direct financial support under
this Section for any educational or support purpose provided under law,
including, but not limited to, gifted and talented programs, magnet programs, literacy programs, dual-language immersion programs, special
education, employee compensation, career and college centers at high
schools, teacher mentoring or master teacher programs, or other
instructional purposes. The City recognizes that in providing such programs and services, a well-run school district requires both certificated
Legal Text – Proposition C
197
and classified staff, and urges the San Francisco Unified School District
to hire both certificated and classified staff to carry out the purposes of
this measure.
(e) Within one year of the effective date of this measure, the
School District, with the assistance of the City’s Department of Public
Health, Department of Human Services, and Department of Children,
Youth, and Their Families, shall conduct an assessment of health, counseling, social work, and nutritional needs of pupils in the District,
including problems related to asthma and other chronic diseases. The
City may appropriate a specific portion of the disbursement under this
Section through its annual appropriation process for these purposes,
pursuant to recommendations from the School District.
SEC. 16.123-6. EXPENDITURE PLANS.
(a) No later than April 1 February 1 of each year during the term
of this measure, the San Francisco Unified School District and the
OECE the First Five Commission shall each submit an expenditure
plan for funding to be received from the Public Education Enrichment
Fund for the upcoming fiscal year to the Mayor and the Board of
Supervisors, in response to the Controller’s March fund estimate for the
coming fiscal year. The proposed expenditure plans must include prior
year total budgeted and expended appropriations and Fund budgeted
and expended appropriations by category, as well as average daily
attendance information for the prior year and anticipated average
daily attendance information for the plan year, to facilitate multi-year
comparison.
(b) The Controller shall review the plans and transmit them, with
his or her comments, to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for
their review and comment.
(b) (c) The plans shall include a budget for the expenditures,
descriptions of programs and services, performance goals, target populations, hiring and recruitment plans for personnel, plans for matching
or other additional funding, operating reserves, and any other matters
that the District and the OECE Commission deem appropriate or the
Mayor or the Board requests.
(c) (d) The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors may request further explanation of items included in the plans, and the District and the
OECE Commission shall respond in a timely manner to such inquiries.
The Board may place appropriations provided for under this measure
on reserve until it has received adequate responses to its inquiries.
SEC. 16.123-7. [Reserved] STRUCTURAL SAVINGS TO THE
CITY’S BUDGET.
(a) Controller’s and Budget Analyst’s Recommendations. Not
later than October 1 of each fiscal year from Fiscal Year 2005-06
through 2009-10, the Controller and the Board of Supervisors’ Budget
Analyst shall prepare and submit recommended cuts or other structural
changes to reduce, on an ongoing basis, spending on City departmental
operations, or identify new revenues, in an amount sufficient to meet
each year’s required funding for the Public Education Enrichment
Fund.
(b) Board of Supervisors’ Proposals. Not later than December
15 of each fiscal year from Fiscal Year 2005-06 through Fiscal Year
2009-10, the Board of Supervisors shall hold hearings on the recommendations made by the Controller and the Budget Analyst and shall
forward its proposals to the Mayor.
(c) Budget Requirements. In his/her annual budget submission
to the Board of Supervisors for each fiscal year from Fiscal Year 200506 through Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Mayor shall incorporate the Board
of Supervisors’ proposals, or identify alternative revenue or expenditure
savings sufficient to appropriate funds to the Public Education
Enrichment Fund according to the schedule set forth in Section
16.123-2 of this measure.
SEC. 16.123-8. ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) In any year of this measure, if the joint budget report as prepared by the Controller, the Mayor’s Budget Director and the Board of
Supervisors’ Budget Analyst projects a budgetary shortfall of $100 mil-
198
Legal Text – Proposition C
lion dollars or more, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors may
reduce the City’s contribution to the Public Education Enrichment
Fund under Section 16.123-2, and its disbursements under Sections
16.123-3, 16.123-4, or 16.123-5, by up to 25 percent; provided, however, that the City must pay back the amount deferred within the period
from June 30, 2015, the last day of the term of this measure, and June
30, 2018, a date three years later, unless the voters extend this measure
beyond July 1, 2015 or authorize a substantially similar measure at
that time.
(a) (b) Audit Recommendations. The Mayor and the Board of
Supervisors may suspend the City’s disbursements from the baseline
appropriations or the Public Education Enrichment Fund under Sections
16.123-3, 16.123-4, or 16.123-5 in whole or in part for any year where
the Controller certifies that the San Francisco Unified School District
or the OECE the First Five Commission has failed to adopt audit recommendations made by the Controller.
As part of the audit function, the Controller shall periodically
review performance and cost benchmarks developed by the School
District and the OECE the First Five Commission, including:
(1) Fund dollars spent for services, materials, and supplies
permitted under the Charter;
(2) Fund dollars spent as reported to the City;
(3) Supporting documentation of Fund expenditures; and,
(4) Progress towards established workload, efficiency and
effectiveness measures.
in consultation with the Controller for programs funded under this
measure. The Commission’s performance and cost benchmarks shall be
based on the same performance and cost benchmarks as are required
for other City departments, and on comparisons with other cities, counties, and public agencies performing similar functions. The School
District’s performance and cost benchmarks shall be based on similar
standards.
In particular, the Controller shall assess:
(1) Measures of workload addressing the level of service
being provided or providing an assessment of need for a service;
(2) Measures of efficiency including cost per unit of service
provided, cost per unit of output, or the units of service provided per
full time equivalent position; and
(3) Measures of effectiveness including the quality of service provided, citizen perceptions of quality, and the extent a service
meets the needs for which it was created.
The Controller’s audits may address the extent to which the
School District and the First Five Commission have met their respective performance and cost benchmarks.
(b) (c) Reserve Policies. The Mayor and the Board of
Supervisors may suspend the City’s disbursements from the baseline
appropriations or the Public Education Enrichment Fund under Sections
16.123-2, 16.123-4, or 16.123-5 in whole or in part for any year where
the Controller certifies that the San Francisco Unified School District
or the OECE the First Five Commission has failed to adopt reserve policies recommended by the Controller.
(c) (d) Transfer and Use of Suspended Distributions. If the
Mayor and the Board of Supervisors suspend City distributions from
the baseline appropriations or the Public Education Enrichment Fund
under subsections (a) or (b) or (c), the City shall transfer the amount
that would otherwise be distributed from the baseline appropriations or
the Public Education Enrichment Fund for that year to the Children and
Youth Children’s Fund established in Charter Section 16.108, or any
successor legislation, for the provision of substantially equivalent services and programs.
(d) (e) New Local Revenues. The Board of Supervisors may, by
ordinance, proportionally reduce the contribution to the Public
Education Enrichment Fund and the disbursements to the San Francisco
Unified School District and the OECE the First Five Commission
required by Sections 16.123-1 through 16.123-10 this measure if the
voters of San Francisco adopt new, dedicated revenue sources for the
School District or the OECE Commission, and the offsetting reduction
in disbursements is specifically authorized by the local revenue measure.
38-EN-N14-CP198
(e) (f) New State Revenues. Following full implementation of
the per-student funding targets outlined for SFUSD in the State’s Local
Control Funding Formula (“LCFF”), as adopted in 2013, the The
Board of Supervisors may, by ordinance, proportionally reduce the contribution to the Public Education Enrichment Fund and the disbursements to the San Francisco Unified School District required by this
measure if the percentage increase in per-pupil LCFF Revenue Limit
funding provided by the State of California to the San Francisco
Unified School District in any subsequent fiscal year exceeds the percentage increase in the City’s cost of living during the previous fiscal
year.
The Board of Supervisors may, by ordinance, proportionally
reduce the contribution to the Public Education Enrichment Fund and
the disbursements to the OECE the First Five Commission if the State
of California provides funding to the City for universal preschool, provided that such disbursements are not required to match state and/or
other funding.
(g) Eighteen months prior to the expiration of this measure, the
Controller shall conduct a complete analysis of the outcomes of the
programs funded through the Public Education Enrichment Fund. The
Controller’s study shall also address changes in the levels of state and
federal funding for local schools, per-pupil spending in the San
Francisco Unified School District compared to urban school districts
of similar size. The Controller shall present the results of this analysis
to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors no later than nine months
prior to the expiration of the measure.
SEC. 16.123-10. SUNSET.
The provisions of Sections 16.123-1 through 16.123-10 this measure shall expire in eleven years, at the end of Fiscal Year 2040-2041
2014-15, unless extended by the voters.
SEC. 16.127-1. OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES COUNCIL;
PREAMBLE.
(a) San Francisco has historically shown great concern and
compassion for its most vulnerable residents—its children. The City
and the community have demonstrated this commitment through the
adoption of progressive, innovative and creative ideals supporting the
well-being of San Francisco’s children and families.
(b) To continue its legacy as a champion of children, it is imperative for San Francisco to further invest in the City’s children and families.
(c) The people of the City and County of San Francisco previously supported the passage of the unprecedented Children’s
Amendment in 1991 and 2000 and the Public Education Enrichment
Fund in 2004. While these initiatives dedicated funding to services, the
level of unmet needs in providing critical programming and services
still falls short.
(d) In order to advance a Citywide vision and long-term set of
goals, City leaders, departments, the San Francisco Unified School
District (“SFUSD”), and community partners must come together to
align needs with services, coordinate across agencies, and develop a
strategy.
(e) The Our Children, Our Families Council, comprised of
department heads from the City and SFUSD, and community stakeholders, will build a platform that will place children and families at the
center of every policy decision.
(f) With the renewal of the Children and Youth Fund and the
Public Education Enrichment Fund in November 2014, the City must
seize this opportunity to develop a long-term Citywide vision, create a
set of strategies, coordinate services, and identify shared goals to not
only ensure that all children and families already here are able to
thrive, but to encourage other families to live here.
(g) The percentage of children under the age of 18 in San
Francisco has steadily declined. As of 2010, 13.4 percent of the City’s
total population was under the age of 18, the lowest percentage of any
major city nationwide.
38-EN-N14-CP199
(h) Families continue to leave San Francisco, especially those
families in the low to moderate income brackets.
(i) San Francisco’s children population is declining, with over
10 percent of 1 to 4 year olds moving out of the City annually and
fewer children moving in.
(j) The declining numbers of children and families in the City
cost the community financially as less money is spent on the local
economy.
(k) This measure will put in place a collaborative approach
around the following points of unity:
(1) Ensuring equity, and giving priority to children and
youth with the highest needs;
(2) Empowering parents, youth, and community stakeholders by giving them a voice in the implementation of this Citywide
vision; and,
(3) Building public trust through transparency and
accountability meeting the needs of children and families.
SEC. 16.127-2. OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES COUNCIL;
CREATION.
There shall be an Our Children, Our Families Council (“the
Council”) to advise the City on the unmet needs, services, and basic
needs infrastructure of children and families in San Francisco through
the creation of a Children and Families Plan for the City.
SEC. 16.127-3. OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES COUNCIL;
PURPOSE.
In order to advance a Citywide vision centered on the needs of
children and families, City leaders and departments, SFUSD, and community partners must come together to coordinate their efforts across
agencies and develop a strategy for achieving shared goals. The purpose of the Children and Families Plan to be developed by the Council
will be to create an aligned and connected system of programs and services, in order to strengthen the City’s ability to best serve children,
youth and their families, with the specific goals of promoting coordination among and increased accessibility to such programs and services,
and enhancing their overall effectiveness.
SEC. 16.127-4. OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES COUNCIL;
COMPOSITION.
The Mayor shall chair the Council, and shall invite the
Superintendent of SFUSD to serve as co-chair of the Council. Other
members of the Council shall include the heads of City departments
with responsibilities for services to children and families, members of
the community, and stakeholders. The Mayor shall also invite the heads
of SFUSD divisions identified by the Superintendent to serve as members of the Council.
SEC. 16.127-5. OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES COUNCIL;
RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) In order to ensure that all children in every neighborhood,
especially those neighborhoods with the greatest needs, have access to
the resources to achieve, the Council will be responsible for developing
a Citywide vision, Citywide shared priorities, Citywide program goals,
and Citywide best practices for addressing those needs.
(b) The San Francisco Children and Families Plan. The
Council shall craft a San Francisco Children and Families Plan (“the
Plan”) and identify relevant goals and strategies to align and coordinate the services to children and families provided by City departments,
SFUSD, and community partners and to maximize support for children
and families. The Plan shall consider the following elements:
(1) Ease of access for children, youth and families in
receiving services;
(2) Educational milestones developed by SFUSD and youth
development milestones developed by the Department of Children,
Youth, and Their Families (“DCYF”) and the Council;
(3) Existing quality of service benchmarks established by
City and SFUSD departments;
Legal Text – Proposition C
199
(4) Framework for a basic needs infrastructure, including,
but not limited to, housing, transit, and job placement resources; and
(5) Fairness in prioritizing the delivery of services to the
children and families with the most need.
The Plan shall also include an equity analysis of services and
resources for children, youth, and families. The Council shall develop a
set of equity metrics to be used to compare existing services and
resources in low-income and disadvantaged communities with services
and resources available in the City as a whole. The Council may draw
upon metrics used by departments including DCYF and the Office of
Early Care and Education (or any successor agency).
(c) No later than May 1, 2016, and every fifth year thereafter, the
Council shall develop and adopt a set of proposed Citywide outcomes
for services to children and families, including an outcomes framework
responsive to the evolving needs of the community. No later than
July 1, 2016, and every fifth year thereafter, the Council shall prepare
and adopt a Children and Families Plan for the City, which shall
include a comprehensive assessment of City policies and programs,
both public and private, addressing the needs of children and families
in San Francisco, and policy‑level recommendations for making the
City more supportive of children and families. The Council shall
emphasize solicitation and incorporation of community input in the
development of the initial Plan and subsequent Plans.
(d) No later than October 1, 2017, and each year thereafter, the
Board of Supervisors shall conduct a noticed public hearing to review
the Council’s performance and the City’s overall progress under the
current Plan and to update interested parties on the status of the next
Plan.
(e) All City Departments shall consider the Plan in developing
their own strategic plans to make the City more supportive of children
and families.
(f) Planning. Following the adoption of implementing legislation
under Section 16.126‑7, the Mayor shall appoint members to the
Council and the Council shall convene to make initial decisions regarding staffing, organization, and implementation. The Council shall also
begin planning for the start of the five-year planning cycle in Fiscal
Year 2016‑2017. The Council may recommend, and the Board of
Supervisors may approve by ordinance, changes to the due dates and
timelines provided in this Section 16.127-5.
(g) Coordination of Stakeholders. The Council shall ensure that
various community groups, agencies, and organizations responsible for
providing support, including the City, SFUSD, and community partners, work together in aligned, coherent, and effective ways.
(h) Coordination of Departments. The Council shall facilitate
cooperation and coordination between relevant departments of the City
and SFUSD to maximize alignment and improve outcomes for children
and youth. The Council shall oversee development and implementation
of a data-sharing agreement between SFUSD and relevant City departments. The Council, in cooperation with the Board of Supervisors, the
San Francisco Board of Education, and community groups, shall work
to ensure that funds spent to benefit children and families are targeted
to those most in need of specific services and that the funds are used
strategically to leverage and complement existing and anticipated federal, state, and local resources.
(i) Continued Autonomy of City and SFUSD. The Council will
be a policy coordinating body dedicated to improving coordination
between the City and its departments, SFUSD and its departments, and
community-based organizations funded by those agencies. While the
Council will make recommendations to the City and SFUSD, the City
and SFUSD will each retain its full independence and authority regarding programmatic and funding decisions.
(j) Evaluation. Every five years, the Controller shall review the
Council’s operations and the Plan. The Controller shall submit the
results of the review to the Council, the Board of Supervisors, and the
Board of Education. The Council shall consider the results of the
Controller’s review in the preparation of the next Plan. The Council
shall also report to the general public on the Council’s efforts and
achievements through the creation of an annual San Francisco
200
Legal Text – Proposition C
Children and Families First Progress Report. The Progress Report
shall provide the results of the efforts of the City, SFUSD, and the community to serve children and families under the Plan, measured against
quantifiable standards and metrics and in light of the Council’s previously-adopted goals and priorities.
SEC. 16.127-6. OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES COUNCIL;
STAFFING.
(a) Staffing Support. Subject to the fiscal and budgetary provisions of the Charter, the City shall provide staff to the Council
(“Council Staff”) for administrative, organizational, policy, and
research support. Funding for Council Staff shall come from the
General Fund; provided, however, that SFUSD, participating City
departments, and members of the public may provide additional support and contributions.
(b) Staff Roles and Responsibilities. Subject to the direction of
the Council, Council Staff shall:
(1) Provide administrative, organizational, policy, planning, and research support to the Council and its outcomes framework;
(2) Engage department heads from the City and SFUSD to
coordinate the implementation of services;
(3) Provide support for the Council, including developing a
joint data-sharing agreement between the City and SFUSD, monitoring
the planning cycle, providing technical support, and developing policy
briefs on key issues relevant to implementation of the Plan;
(4) Support the development of an inventory of all Citywide
services for children and youth, including state and federally funded
programs; and,
(5) Support the development of the Children and Families
First Progress Report.
(c) Funding. It shall be the policy of the City to provide sufficient funding and administrative support for the Council and Council
Staff to perform these functions. Funding for administrative support for
the Council shall come from the General Fund; provided, however, that
SFUSD, participating City departments, and members of the public
may provide additional support and contributions.
SEC. 16.127-7. OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES COUNCIL;
IMPLEMENTATION.
The Board of Supervisors shall further provide by ordinance for
the membership, structure, functions and support of the Council, consistent with the provisions of Sections 16.126-1 through 16.126-6.
SEC. 9.113.5. RAINY DAY RESERVES RESERVE.
(a) Beginning January 1, 2015, there There shall be a City Rainy
Day Reserve (“the City Reserve”) and a School Rainy Day Reserve
(“the School Reserve”), collectively referred to as the Rainy Day
Reserves which may also be known as an economic stabilization
reserve.
Allocations to the Reserves Reserve
(b) If the Controller projects that total General Fund revenues for
the upcoming budget year will exceed total General Fund revenues for
the current year by more than five percent, the budget shall allocate the
anticipated General Fund revenues in excess of that five percent growth
(the excess revenues) as follows:
1. 50 percent of the excess revenues to the Rainy Day
Reserves Reserve, with 75 percent of that amount deposited to the City
Reserve and 25 percent to the School Reserve;
2. 25 percent of the excess revenues to capital and other
one-time expenditures; and,
3. 25 percent of the excess revenues to any lawful governmental purpose.
(c) Total monies in the City Reserve may not exceed 10 percent
of actual total general fund revenues, as stated in the City’s most recent
independent annual audit. The budget shall allocate excess revenues
that would otherwise be allocated to the City Reserve above the 10 percent cap instead to capital and other one-time expenditures.
38-EN-N14-CP200
(d) The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors may, at any time,
appropriate monies from the capital and other one-time expenditures
allocation for capital projects or for expenditures such as, but not limited to, acquisition of equipment or information systems.
(e) The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors may, at any time,
appropriate monies from the general purpose allocation for any lawful
governmental purpose.
Withdrawals from the City Reserve
(f) If the Controller projects that total General Fund revenues for
the upcoming budget year will be less than the current year’s total
General Fund revenues, or the highest of any other previous year’s total
General Fund revenues, the budget may appropriate up to 50 percent of
the current balance in the City Reserve, but no more than the shortfall
in total General Fund revenues, for any lawful governmental purpose in
the upcoming budget year.
1. If the trigger for withdrawals from the City Reserve was
not met in the current year, the Controller shall calculate the shortfall
for the upcoming budget year by subtracting the total projected General
Fund revenues for the upcoming budget year from the total projected
General Fund revenues for the current year.
2. If the trigger for withdrawals from the City Reserve was
met in the current year, the shortfall shall be calculated by subtracting
the total projected General Fund revenues for the upcoming budget
year from the highest of any previous year’s total General Fund revenues, plus two percent for each intervening year.
Adjustments
(g) If the City made appropriations from the City Reserve in the
current year and in the immediately preceding budget year pursuant to
subsection (f), the City is not required to allocate any anticipated
excess revenues to the Rainy Day Reserves Reserve or to capital and
other one-time expenditures for the upcoming budget year.
(h) If the Controller projects that the Consumer Price Index for
the upcoming budget year shall exceed the index for the current year by
more than five percent, the trigger for allocations to the Reserve as set
forth in Subparagraph (b) above shall instead be the percentage of
growth in the index plus two percent. If the Controller projects that the
Consumer Price Index for the upcoming budget year shall be less than
the index for the current year, the trigger for withdrawals from the
Reserve as set forth in Subparagraph (f) above shall instead be the percentage of negative growth in the index. The Controller shall use for
these purposes the San Francisco All Items Consumer Price Index for
All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), or its successor, as reported by the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(i) If the Board of Supervisors or the voters take an action that
changes the amount of total General Fund revenues in any material
manner, such as reducing a tax or imposing a new fee, the revenue
changes caused by that action will not be counted as part of the triggers
for allocations to the Rainy Day Reserves or withdrawals from the City
Reserve during the year or years in which the action is first implemented.
(j) In conjunction with the year-end close of the budget, the
Controller shall reconcile the revenue projections triggering any budgeted allocations to or withdrawals from the Rainy Day Reserves
Reserve with actual revenue results, as stated in the City’s independent
annual audit for the years in question, and rebalance the Rainy Day
Reserves Reserve, the capital and other one-time expenditures allocation, and the general purpose allocation accordingly.
Withdrawals from the School Reserve for the Benefit of the Unified
School District
(k) If the San Francisco Unified School District (“SFUSD”)
projects that inflation-adjusted per-pupil discretionary revenues for the
upcoming fiscal year will be reduced and that a significant number of
layoffs would be required to balance its budget, the SFUSD Board of
Education may approve, by majority vote, a draw from the School
Reserve of up to 50 percent of the current balance in the School
Reserve but no more than the shortfall in inflation-adjusted per-pupil
discretionary revenues, as determined by the SFUSD Board of
Education. Such action shall be transmitted to the Controller, who upon
38-EN-N14-CP201
certification of the SFUSD calculation shall transfer such funds to the
SFUSD. For purposes of this Section, allocations provided from the
City to the SFUSD through the Public Education Enrichment Fund
shall not be deemed discretionary.
(l) If the triggers for withdrawal from the School Reserve were
met in the current fiscal year, the decline in per-pupil discretionary
spending shall be calculated by subtracting the inflation-adjusted perpupil discretionary revenues for the upcoming budget year from the
highest of any previous year’s inflation-adjusted per-pupil discretionary
revenues.
(m) In conjunction with the year-end close of the SFUSD budget,
the SFUSD shall reconcile the revenue projections triggering a budgeted withdrawal from the School Reserve with actual revenue results,
as stated in the SFUSD’s independent audit for the years in question.
The SFUSD shall rebalance the withdrawal allocation and, if necessary, return funds required to rebalance the Reserve.
(n) Given possible changes in State school funding formulae,
changes in local demographic or economic conditions, or other factors,
the SFUSD may for a given fiscal year draw from the School Reserve
amounts in excess of the limitations in subsection (k) or to offset revenue losses that are less than those that would otherwise permit a draw
under subsections (k) and (l) . Such action shall become operative for
that fiscal year following approval of two-thirds of the SFUSD Board
of Education and certification by the Controller of the Board of
Education’s action.
(k) If the Controller projects that inflation-adjusted per-pupil
revenues for the San Francisco Unified School District will be reduced
in the upcoming budget year and the School District has noticed a significant number of layoffs, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor
may, in their discretion, appropriate funds from the Reserve to the
School District to offset the costs of maintaining education during the
upcoming budget year. Such appropriations may not exceed the dollar
value of the total decline in inflation-adjusted per-pupil revenues for
the year, or 25 percent of the Reserve balance, whichever is lower. If
the triggers for withdrawals from the Reserve for the benefit of the
School District were met in the current year, the decline in per-pupil
revenues shall be calculated by subtracting the inflation-adjusted perpupil revenues for the upcoming budget year from the highest of any
previous year’s inflation-adjusted per-pupil revenues, plus two percent
for each intervening year.
Transition to New Reserve Structure
(o) No later than January 1, 2015, the Controller shall transfer
50 percent of the Rainy Day Reserve existing as of that date to the City
Reserve and 50 percent to the School Reserve.
Two-Year Budget
(p)(l) The Controller shall promulgate procedures modifying the
Rainy Day Reserve system, as necessary, to be consistent with the
City’s adoption of biennial rather than annual budgets.
SEC. 4.133. TAXI COMMISSION.
(a) The Taxi Commission shall consist of seven members,
appointed by the Mayor. The appointments shall include a member
from the senior or disabled communities, a driver who does not hold a
taxicab medallion, a manager in a taxicab company (either a medallion
holder or a company representative), a member from the hospitality
industry, a member from the labor community, a member from the
neighborhoods, and a member of the general public not affiliated with
any of the other enumerated categories.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 87103, individuals
appointed to the Commission under this Section are intended to represent and further the interest of the particular industries, trades, or professions specified herein. Accordingly, it is found that for purposes of
persons who hold such office, the specified industries, trades, or professions are tantamount to and constitute the public generally within
the meaning of Government Code Section 87103.
The commissioners appointed to take office upon the effective
date of this Charter section shall by lot classify their terms so that the
terms of three of the commissioners shall expire at noon on the first
Legal Text – Proposition C and D
201
anniversary of such date, and the terms of the remaining four commissioners shall expire at noon on the second anniversary of the effective
date. On the expiration of these and successive terms of office, the
appointments shall be made for two-year terms.
Members may be removed by the Mayor only pursuant to Section
15.105. Vacancies occurring in the offices of members, either during or
at the expiration of a term, shall be filled by the Mayor.
(b) Effective March 1, 1999, the Commission shall succeed to all
powers and responsibilities relating to taxicabs and other motor vehicles for hire, other than criminal enforcement, now vested in the Police
Commission, the Police Department or the Chief of Police. The Taxi
Commission may be assigned additional duties and functions by ordinance or pursuant to Section 4.132.
(c) All costs associated with the operations of the Taxi
Commission, and such officers and employees as are necessary for the
Commission to operate and administer the department and are authorized pursuant to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the Charter,
shall be recovered from permit, license and other fees charged to permit-holders, applicants, and other persons by the Commission. The
Board of Supervisors shall set fees sufficient to offset the costs of the
Commission’s operations and any such officers and employees.
Notwithstanding the above, the Board of Supervisors may continue to
offer reduced fees to operators who participate in the City’s Paratransit
Program, and offset the reduction in revenues with a contribution from
the General Fund.
Proposition D
Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters to amend the
Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, Sections A8.428
and A8.432, to provide retiree health care benefits to employees of
the former Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San
Francisco or the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of
the City and County of San Francisco who started working for the
City and County of San Francisco before March 1, 2015, and after
January 31, 2012, without a break in employment, and to persons
who are registered as domestic partners to retired employees under
the law of the state, city, or county in which they reside or who live
in a jurisdiction that does not recognize domestic partnership but
who have submitted the Health Service System Declaration of
Domestic Partnership Form, at an election to be held on November
4, 2014.
Section 1. The Planning Department has determined that the
actions contemplated in this proposed Charter Amendment comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources
Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Said determination is on file with the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 140507 and is
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the
qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on
November 4, 2014, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and
County by revising Sections A8.428 and A8.432, to read as follows:
NOTE:Unchanged Charter text and uncodified text are in
plain font.
Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman
font.
Deletions are strike-through italics Times New Roman
font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged
Charter subsections.
SEC. A8.428. HEALTH SERVICE SYSTEM TRUST FUND.
There is hereby created a health service system trust fund. The
costs of the health service system shall be borne by the members of the
system and Retired Persons, the City and County of San Francisco
202
Legal Text – Proposition D
because of its members and Retired Persons, the Parking Authority of
the City and County of San Francisco because of its members and
Retired Persons, the San Francisco Unified School District because of
its members and Retired Persons and the San Francisco Community
College District because of its members and Retired Persons.
(a) Definitions.
“Credited Service” means years of employment with the
Employers or the former Redevelopment Agency of the City and County
of San Francisco (the “Redevelopment Agency”) or the Successor
Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San
Francisco (the “Successor Agency”), provided that for any employee of
the Redevelopment Agency or Successor Agency, the employee became
an employee of the Redevelopment Agency before September 1, 2010
and became an employee of the City and County without a break in
service after January 31, 2012 and before March 1, 2015.
“Employers” as used in this section means the City and County
of San Francisco (“City and County”), the San Francisco Unified
School District (“School District”) and/or the San Francisco
Community College District (“Community College District”).
Employers shall also include the Superior Court of California, County
of San Francisco (“Superior Court”), to the extent the Superior Court
participates in the City’s Health Service System, under Section
A8.428(e).
“Hired on or Before January 9, 2009” as used in this section
means employees hired on or before January 9, 2009, byof the City and
County, the School District, and/or the Community College District, or
the Redevelopment Agency who were hired on or before January 9,
2009, excluding the following categories of employees: (1) as-needed
employees who have, never earned 1,040 or more hours of
compensation during any 12-month period ending on or before January
9, 2009; and (2) employees who have separated from employment with
the Employers or the Redevelopment Agency on or before January 9,
2009, and have less than 5 years of Credited Service with the
Employers or the Redevelopment Agency; (3) former employees of the
Redevelopment Agency who became employees of the City and County
after February 28, 2015; (4) former employees of the Redevelopment
Agency who left employment with the Redevelopment Agency and
became employees of the City and County before February 1, 2012;
and (5) former employees of the Redevelopment Agency who have
received retiree health care coverage under the Public Employees
Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMCHA) on or before February 28,
2015.
“PERS” as used in this section shall mean the Public Employees’
Retirement System of the State of California.
“Plan Year” as used in section A8.423 shall mean the twelve
month period beginning on each July 1 and ending on June 30, or such
other 12 month period as may be determined by the Health Service
Board.
“Registered as Domestic Partners” as used in this section means
persons who have established a domestic partnership according to the
provisions of Chapter 62 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, or
California state law, as amended from time to time.,or the law of the
city or county in which they reside or of the state outside of California
in which they reside. Persons who live in a state, city, or county that
does not recognize domestic partnership who submit a completed and
notarized City and County Health Service System Declaration of
Domestic Partnership Form to the Health Service System shall also be
considered domestic partners under this section. Domestic partners
who have formed their domestic partnership only by notarization of a
declaration of Domestic Partnership as provided in Chapter 62 of the
San Francisco Administrative Code shall not be recognized or treated
as a domestic partnership under this Section unless and until the
domestic partnership is registered or certified.
“Retirement System” as used in this section shall mean the San
Francisco City and County Employees’ Retirement System.
“Retired under the San Francisco City and County Employees’
Retirement System” as used in this section includes persons who retire
for service; retire for disability; or who receive a retirement or vesting
allowance from the Retirement System.
38-EN-N14-CP202
A “Retired Person” as used in this section means:
(1) A former member of the health service system, hired by
the Employers Hired on or before Before January 9, 2009, retired under
the San Francisco City and County Employees’ Retirement System
and/or PERS (hereinafter, “Retired Employee who was Hired on or
Before January 9, 2009”):; and,
(2) The surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner of
an active employee of the Employers hired Hired on or Before on or
before January 9, 2009, provided that the surviving spouse or surviving
domestic partner and the active employee have been married or
Registered as Domestic Partners for a period of at least one year prior
to the death of the active employee;
(3) The surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner of a
Retired Employee who was Hired on or Before January 9, 2009,
provided that the surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner and
the Retired Employee who was Hired on or Before January 9, 2009
have been married or Registered as Domestic Partners for a period of at
least one year prior to the death of the Retired Employee who was
Hired on or Before January 9, 2009;
(4) A former member of the health service system, hired by
the Employers on or after January 10, 2009, and retired under the
Retirement System and/or PERS for disability, or retired under the
Retirement System or PERS: (i) within 180 days of separation from
employment from the Employers; and (ii) with 10 or more years of
Credited Service with the Employers (hereinafter, “Retired Employee
who was Hired on or After January 10, 2009”);
(5) The surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner of
an active employee of the Employers hired by the Employers on or after
January 10, 2009, with 10 or more years of Credited Service with the
Employers, or who died in the line of duty where the surviving spouse
or surviving domestic partner is entitled to a death allowance from the
Retirement System as a result of the death in the line of duty, provided
that the surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner and the active,
employee have been married or Registered as Domestic Partners for a
period of at least one year prior to the death of the active employee; or
(6) The surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner of a
Retired Employee who was Hired on or After January 10, 2009,
provided that the surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner and
the Retired Employee who was Hired on or After January 10, 2009,
have been married or Registered as Domestic Partners for a period of at
least one year prior to the death of the Retired Employee who was
Hired on or After January 10, 2009.
****
(e) To the extent the Superior Court elects to participate in the
City’s Health Service System for the provision of active and retiree
health care benefits, Superior Court employees shall be treated the
same as City employees for the purposes of vesting, employer
contribution rates, and benefit levels, in accordance with the Trial Court
Employment Protection and Governance Act and applicable State law.
The Superior Court shall pay all administrative and health care costs
related to the Superior Court’s covered employees or retirees as a
participating Employer. The Superior Court may withdraw from
participation in the City’s Health Service System at any time, which
shall not require an amendment to this Charter.
(f) Notwithstanding the retiree health care eligibility
requirements set forth above, a former employee of the Redevelopment
Agency Hired on or Before January 9, 2009 must have been employed
by the City and County after January 9, 2009 to be eligible for retiree
health care coverage under this section. In adopting the Charter
amendment revising Sections A8.428 and A8.432 on November 4, 2014
the voters do not intend that it affect the rights of former employees of
the Redevelopment Agency Hired on or Before January 9, 2009, who
were already eligible for retiree health care coverage as of November
4, 2014.
(g) The amendments of this section contained in the
proposition there for submitted to the electorate on June 3, 2008 shall
be operative January 10, 2009. The purpose of the January 10, 2009,
Charter amendment is to amend Section A8.428 to change the required
38-EN-N14-CP203
years of service and employer retiree health care contribution amounts
for employees hired on or after January 10, 2009. Nothing in thisthat
Charter amendment shall expand or contract the groups of employees
eligible for retiree health care benefits beyond, those groups eligible as
of June 3, 2008.
SEC. A8.432. RETIREE HEALTH CARE TRUST FUND.
There is hereby created a Retiree Health Care Trust Fund
(RHCTF) for the purpose described in Section 12.204. Subject to the
disbursement limitations set forth in Section A8.432(d) below, the
Retiree Health Care Trust Fund Board (Board) shall have exclusive
authority and control over the administration of the RHCTF,
investments of trust assets, and disbursements from the trust in
accordance with the provisions of this Charter.
* * * *
(f) Definitions
“Actuarial Accrued Liability” as used in this section, means
“Actuarial Accrued Liability” as that term is defined under GASB No.
45 as may be amended from time to time.
“Commenced Employment on” as used in this section, shall
refer to the time an employee starts employment with the City and
County, or with a Participating Employer, for the first time, or the time
an employee starts employment with the City and County, or with a
Participating Employer, on a subsequent occasion after a prior
separation from employment with the City and County or any
Participating Employer, whichever date is later. For purposes of this
Section A8.432, an employee of the City and County who was employed
by the former Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San
Francisco (the “Redevelopment Agency”) or the Successor Agency to
the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco
(the “Successor Agency”), and started working for the City and County
before March 1, 2015 without a break in service shall be deemed to
have commenced employment with the City and County on the date the
employee commenced employment with the Redevelopment Agency or
the Successor Agency, except that any such former employee of the
Redevelopment Agency or the Successor Agency who subsequently
separates from employment with the City and County and returns as an
employee of the City and County or a Participating Employer at a later
date (the “Return Date”) shall be deemed to have commenced
employment on the Return Date.
“Employer” and “Employers” as used in this section means the
City and County and the Participating Employers.
“Fully Funded” as used in this section means that an
Employer’s GASB Actuary has determined that the market value of
assets in a sub-trust equals or exceeds the Employer’s Actuarial
Accrued Liability.
“GASB Actuary” and “GASB Actuaries” as used in this
section means the actuarial firms hired by the Employers to provide
estimates of each Employers’ respective total liability and annual
required contribution for post retirement health benefits under GASB
No. 45.
“GASB No. 45” as used in this section means Statement No. 45
of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Accounting and
Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other
Than Pensions as may be amended from time to time.
“Health coverage” as used in this section, means the health
benefits or health insurance provided by the health service system for
retirees, survivors and dependents under Section A8.428.
“Normal Cost” as used in this section, means each Employer’s
normal cost under GASB No. 45 as determined by each Employer’s
GASB Actuary.
“Retiree” as used in this section, means a former employee who
is retired and is entitled to health coverage under Section A8.428, and
the qualified survivors or dependents of such retirees who are entitled
to health coverage under Section A8.428.
“Participating Employers” as used in this section and Sections
A8.432-1, A8.510 and 12.204, shall include the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, San Francisco Unified School
Legal Text – Proposition D and E
203
District and the San Francisco Community College District, following a
resolution by their respective governing boards to participate in the
Retiree Health Care Trust Fund.
* * * *
Proposition E
Ordinance amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code by
adding a new Article 8, imposing a tax of two cents per ounce on the
distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages, to fund City-operated
programs and City grants for active recreation and improving food
access, health, and nutrition, and to fund San Francisco Unified
School District physical education, after school physical activity,
health, or nutrition programs, and school lunch and other school
nutrition programs.
NOTE:Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain
font.
Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times
New Roman font.
Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times
New Roman font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged
Code subsections or parts of tables.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San
Francisco:
Section 1. Pursuant to Article XIIIC of the Constitution of the
State of California, this ordinance shall be submitted to the qualified
electors of the City and County of San Francisco, at the November 4,
2014 consolidated general election.
Section 2. The Business and Tax Regulations Code is hereby
amended by adding Article 8, to read as follows:
ARTICLE 8:
THE SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX ORDINANCE
SEC. 550. SHORT TITLE.
This Article shall be known as the “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage
Tax Ordinance.”
SEC. 551. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
Human consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) is
linked to a myriad of serious health problems including, but not limited
to: weight gain, obesity, coronary heart disease, diabetes, cavities,
tooth decay, and other health problems. Scientific evidence shows that
underlying these chronic health problems is metabolic syndrome (MetS).
MetS is characterized by changes in a body’s normal biochemistry
that can lead to obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, dyslipidemia
(high cholesterol), and visceral fat. SSBs are linked to excess weight
and obesity, which are putting more Americans on the path to MetS.
Heavy added sugar consumption may itself be a direct cause of MetS
by increasing the risk for hypertension, dyslipidemia and visceral fat.
While most people with MetS are obese, normal-weight individuals
can acquire the syndrome as well, given poor dietary habits. Heavy
consumption of sugary drinks has been linked to MetS through a variety
of biological pathways, and is therefore a risk factor in chronic disease.
The 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans report that
sugary drinks are the single greatest source of added sugar in the
American diet, constituting 36.6 percent of added sugars typically
consumed, making them an ideal target for public health protections.
Sugar-sweetened soda, and fruit drinks containing less than 100 percent
juice by volume, are major sources of added sugars in American diets,
contributing an average of 10.58 teaspoons of added sugars each
day. The American Heart Association recommends that adult women
consume no more than six teaspoons of added sugars daily, that adult
204
Legal Text – Proposition E
men consume no more than nine teaspoons, and that children consume
no more than three teaspoons of added sugars (not including naturally
occurring sugars in whole foods such as fruit and plain milk) per day,
which is about 50 calories. However, most Americans consume more
than 19.6 teaspoons of added sugars per day. Even regular, moderate
consumption of sugary drinks (one 12-ounce can a day) increases the
risk of cardiovascular disease mortality by nearly one third.
Obese children suffer more often from sleep apnea, asthma, joint
problems, fatty liver disease, gallstones, and acid reflux (heartburn).
Obese children are more likely to become obese adults, further
increasing their risks for higher rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease,
and some cancers later in life. Profound mental health and quality of
life impacts are seen in children with severe obesity. As of 2010, nearly
one-third (31.7 percent) of children and adolescents in San Francisco
were either obese or overweight. Among adults, consumption of SSBs
is associated with a risk of weight gain and obesity, cardiovascular
disease, a significantly higher risk of stroke, high blood pressure, type
2 diabetes, dental erosion, and the risk of pancreatic cancer. In 20112012, 41.8 percent of adults in San Francisco were either obese or
overweight.
Low-income families are more likely to be affected by obesity
and diabetes. For example, the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood
had more per capita emergency room visits due to diabetes between
2009 and 2011 than any other neighborhood in San Francisco. Eighteen
percent of three- to four-year-olds enrolled in San Francisco Head Start
were obese, with an additional 13 percent being overweight. Head Start
serves children of low-income families.
According to the American Dental Association, a steady diet
of sugary foods and drinks, including juice and sports drinks, can
damage teeth. Cavity-causing bacteria in the mouth feed on sugar and
produce acids that attack tooth enamel for up to 20 minutes after eating
or drinking. Sipping sugary beverages or eating sugary foods all day
results in repeated acid attacks that weaken tooth enamel and lead
to cavities. In extreme cases, softer enamel combined with improper
brushing, grinding of the teeth, or other conditions can lead to tooth
loss.
The annual cost of being overweight and obese to California
families, employers, the health care industry, and the government is
estimated to be $21 billion. The San Francisco Budget and Legislative
Analyst estimates that up to $61.8 million in costs incurred by San
Franciscans with obesity and diabetes are attributable to sugary
beverage consumption. The total national cost of diabetes in 2007 was
$174 billion.
Research shows that lifestyle interventions are more cost-effective
than medications in preventing or delaying type 2 diabetes. SSBs have
been targeted as part of a tax policy to reduce caloric intake, improve
diet and health, and generate revenue that governments can use to
address obesity-related health and economic burdens. The Institute of
Medicine and other beverage tax advocates suggest that tax revenues
could be used to promote healthier eating and reduce or prevent obesity.
In 2009, the Institute of Medicine recommended that local governments
implement a tax strategy for calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food and
beverages to discourage consumption. Likewise, in 2010, the White
House Task Force on Childhood Obesity recommended that federal,
state, and local governments analyze the effects of taxes on less healthy,
energy-dense foods, such as SSBs.
The purpose of taxing SSBs is to make San Franciscans healthier
by discouraging consumption of the main source of added dietary
sugars, and by raising funds to support health promotion and obesity
prevention, particularly targeting children in San Francisco’s lowincome communities. Plain water and—unless advised otherwise by
a pediatrician—low-fat (one percent) or nonfat milk are the most
appropriate beverages for healthy children older than the age of two.
Yet, 17.2 percent of San Francisco children and adolescents consume
two or more glasses of soda or sugary drink per day. Within this,
there are significant variations by ethnicity, with 24.2 percent of Asian
and 33.9 percent of Latino, and only 4.4 percent of white children,
consuming two or more glasses of soda or sugary drink per day. On
38-EN-N14-CP204
average, children consumed 11.96 teaspoons of added sugars from
sodas and fruit drinks per day – 47 percent of their total intake of added
sugars. A single 12-ounce can of soda contains eight to ten teaspoons of
sugar, and typical container sizes of popular sugary drinks marketed to
children far exceed recommended amounts.
Assessing a tax on SSBs is intended to help address the high
levels of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other diseases by reducing
consumption and providing a revenue stream for City-directed and
grant-funded physical activity and nutrition programs in schools, parks,
community centers, and through community-based organizations.
SEC. 552. DEFINITIONS.
Unless otherwise defined in this Article 8, terms that are defined
in Article 6 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code shall have the
meanings provided therein.
“Active Recreation Programs” are programs where participants
are able to engage in exercise or physical activity.
“Base Amount” means the Controller’s calculation of the amount
of the City expenditures for Eligible Programs for the Baseline Year, as
described in Section 557.
“Base Product” means the same as Powder.
“Baseline” means the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30,
2015, described in Section 557.
“Beverage Dispensing Machine” means an automated device
that mixes Concentrate with one or more other ingredients and
dispenses the resulting mixture into an open container as a ready-todrink beverage.
“Caloric Substance” means a substance that adds calories to the
diet of a person who consumes that substance.
“Caloric Sweetener” means any Caloric Substance suitable for
human consumption that humans perceive as sweet and includes, but is
not limited to, sucrose, fructose, high fructose corn sweetener, glucose,
and other sugars.
“City” means the City and County of San Francisco.
“Committee” means the Healthy Nutrition and Physical Activity
Access Fund Committee described in Section 558.
“Concentrate” means a Syrup, Powder, or Base Product that is
used for mixing, compounding, or making Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
in a Beverage Dispensing Machine. Notwithstanding the foregoing
sentence, “Concentrate” does not include the following:
(a) Any product that is designed to be used primarily to
prepare coffee or tea.
(b) Any product that is sold and is intended to be used for
the purpose of an individual consumer mixing, compounding, or making
a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage.
(c) Any product sold for consumption by infants, which
is commonly referred to as “infant formula,” or any product whose
purpose is infant rehydration.
(d) Medical Food.
(e) Any product designed as supplemental, meal
replacement, or sole-source nutrition that includes proteins,
carbohydrates, and multiple vitamins and minerals.
“Distribution” includes:
(a) The transfer in the City for consideration of physical
possession of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or Concentrate by any
person other than a common carrier. “Distribution” also includes the
transfer of physical possession in the City by any person other than a
common carrier without consideration for promotional or any other
commercial purpose.
(b) The possession, storage, ownership, or control in the
City, by any person other than a common carrier, of Sugar-Sweetened
Beverages or Concentrate for resale in the ordinary course of business,
obtained by means of a transfer of physical possession outside the City
or from a common carrier in the City.
(c) “Distribution” does not include the return of any
Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or Concentrate to a person, if that person
refunds the entire amount paid in cash or credit. “Distribution” does
not include a retail sale or use.
38-EN-N14-CP205
“Distributor” means any person engaged in the business
of Distribution of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or Concentrate. A
“Distributor” does not include a common carrier. Where a common
carrier obtains physical possession of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or
Concentrate outside the City and transfers physical possession of the
Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or Concentrate in the City, the transferee
of the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or Concentrate is a Distributor.
“Eligible Programs” means City-operated programs and City
grants for active recreation and/or improving food access, health,
and nutrition, and San Francisco Unified School District physical
education, after school physical activity, health, or nutrition programs,
school lunch, and other school nutrition programs. Eligible Programs
shall include only programs described in Section 557(a)(3)(A) through
(D) of this Article 8.
“Fund” is the Active Recreation, Nutrition, and Public Health
Fund described in Section 553.
“Medical Food” means medical food as defined in Section
109971 of the California Health and Safety Code, including
amendments to that Section.
“Milk” means natural liquid milk, natural milk concentrate
(whether or not reconstituted) or dehydrated natural milk (whether or
not reconstituted), regardless of animal source or butterfat content. For
purposes of this definition, “Milk” includes flavored milk containing no
more than 40 grams of total sugar (naturally-occurring and from added
Caloric Sweetener) per 12 ounces.
“Natural Fruit Juice” means the original liquid resulting
from the pressing of fruit, the liquid resulting from the complete
reconstitution of natural fruit juice concentrate, or the liquid resulting
from the complete restoration of water to dehydrated natural fruit juice.
“Natural Vegetable Juice” means the original liquid resulting
from the pressing of vegetables, the liquid resulting from the complete
reconstitution of natural vegetable juice concentrate, or the liquid
resulting from the complete restoration of water to dehydrated natural
vegetable juice.
“New Programs” means the New Programs as described in
Section 557.
“Nonalcoholic Beverage” means any beverage that is not subject
to tax under Part 14 (commencing with Section 32001) of the California
Revenue and Taxation Code.
“Powder” means a solid or liquid mixture of ingredients with
added Caloric Sweetener used in making, mixing, or compounding
Sugar-Sweetened Beverages by mixing the Powder with any one
or more other ingredients, including, without limitation, water, ice,
Syrup, Simple Syrup, fruits, vegetables, fruit juice, vegetable juice, or
carbonation or other gas.
“Simple Syrup” means a mixture of sugar and water.
“Sugar-Sweetened Beverage” means any Nonalcoholic Beverage
sold for human consumption that has one or more added Caloric
Sweeteners and contains more than 25 calories per 12 ounces of
beverage. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, “Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage” does not include any of the following:
(a)Milk.
(b) Milk alternatives, including but not limited to nondairy creamers or beverages primarily consisting of plant-based
ingredients (e.g., soy, rice, or almond milk products), regardless of
sugar content.
(c) Any beverage that contains solely 100 percent Natural
Fruit Juice, Natural Vegetable Juice, or combined Natural Fruit Juice
and Natural Vegetable Juice.
(d) Any product sold for consumption by infants, which
is commonly referred to as “infant formula,” or any product whose
purpose is infant rehydration.
(e) Medical Food.
(f) Any product designed as supplemental, meal
replacement, or sole-source nutrition that includes proteins,
carbohydrates, and multiple vitamins and minerals.
Legal Text – Proposition E
205
(g) Any product sold in liquid form designed for use as
an oral nutritional therapy for persons who may have a limited ability
to absorb or metabolize dietary nutrients from traditional food or
beverages.
(h) Any product sold in liquid form designed for use for
weight reduction.
“Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax” is the Tax imposed under
Section 553.
“Syrup” means the liquid mixture of ingredients used in making,
mixing, or compounding Sugar-Sweetened Beverages using one or more
ingredients, including, without limitation, water, ice, a Base Product,
Powder, Simple Syrup, fruits, vegetables, fruit juice, vegetable juice, or
carbonation or other gas.
“Tax” is the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax.
SEC. 553. IMPOSITION OF TAX; DEPOSIT OF PROCEEDS.
(a) For the privilege of engaging in the business of making
initial Distributions of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or Concentrate
in the City, the City imposes a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax on
the Distributor making the initial Distribution of Sugar-Sweetened
Beverages or Concentrate in the City.
(b) The Tax shall be calculated as follows:
(1) Two cents ($0.02) per fluid ounce of Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage upon the initial Distribution of the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage
in the City; and
(2) Two cents ($0.02) per fluid ounce of Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage that could be produced from Concentrate upon the initial
Distribution of Concentrate in the City. For purposes of calculating
the Tax for Concentrate, the Tax shall be calculated using the largest
volume of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage that could result from the use of
the Concentrate according to any manufacturer’s instructions. If the Tax
is paid with respect to the Distribution of Concentrate in the City, then
no Tax shall be due with respect to the Distribution in the City of any
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage produced from such Concentrate.
(c) All monies collected pursuant to the Tax shall be deposited
to the credit of the Active Recreation, Nutrition, and Public Health
Fund. The Fund shall be maintained separate and apart from all
other City funds and shall be appropriated by annual or supplemental
appropriation.
SEC. 554. REGISTRATION OF DISTRIBUTORS;
DOCUMENTATION; ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Each Distributor shall register with the Tax Collector.
(b) Each Distributor shall keep and preserve all such records
as the Tax Collector may require for the purpose of ascertaining and
determining compliance under this Article 8.
(c) Except as otherwise provided under this Article 8, the
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax shall be administered pursuant to
Article 6 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code.
SEC. 555. CREDITS AND REFUNDS.
The Tax Collector shall refund or credit to a Distributor the
Tax that is paid with respect to the initial Distribution in the City of a
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage or Concentrate that is shipped to a point
outside the City for Distribution outside the City, or on which the Tax
has already been paid by another person, or which has been returned to
the person who sold it and the entire purchase price has been refunded
in cash or credit.
SEC. 556. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE TAX COLLECTOR.
(a) The Department of Public Health shall provide to the Tax
Collector technical assistance to identify Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
or Concentrate subject to the Tax.
(b) All City Departments shall provide to the Tax Collector
technical assistance to identify Distributors of Sugar-Sweetened
Beverages or Concentrate.
206
Legal Text – Proposition E
SEC. 557. EXPENDITURE OF PROCEEDS.
(a) Monies in the Fund shall be used exclusively for the
purposes specified in this Article 8. No monies from the Fund shall
be appropriated or expended for any funding requirement imposed by
The Arts, Music, Sports, and Pre-School for Every Child Amendment
of 2003 (Charter Sec. 16.123-1 et seq.) or any successor legislation.
Subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the City Charter,
monies in the Fund shall be appropriated on an annual basis to the
following departments and used solely for the following purposes:
(1) Administrative Costs. Up to two percent of the
proceeds of the Tax, in any proportion, to the Tax Collector and
other City Departments for administration of the Tax, and to the
City Administrator for administration of the Committee, and for
the Committee’s evaluation of programs funded by the Tax, and
development of strategic and expenditure plans.
(2) Refunds of any overpayments of the Tax imposed
under this Article 8.
(3) Funding of Eligible Programs that are “New
Programs,” as defined in this Section 557, that are consistent with the
findings, purpose, and goals stated in this Article 8, in the following
proportions:
(A) 40 percent to the San Francisco Unified School
District for (i) student nutrition services; school-based gardens,
nutrition classes, and cooking classes for students and parents; teacher
training and curricular support in nutrition education; and afterschool programs, including but not limited to nutrition education,
healthy snacks, school-based gardening, and cooking classes; and (ii)
expansion and improvement of physical education, which may include
teachers, education specialists, athletic equipment, training, and
programming, provided that programs under both subsections (i) and
(ii) are each appropriated no less than one-quarter of this 40 percent;
and
(B) 25 percent, in any proportion, to the Department
of Public Health and the Public Utilities Commission for (i) healthy
food access initiatives; (ii) drinking fountains and water bottle filling
stations; (iii) oral health services; (iv) chronic disease prevention; and
(v) public education campaigns, provided that programs under each
subsection (i) through (v) are each appropriated no less than one-tenth
of this 25 percent; and
(C) 25 percent to the Recreation and Park
Department for recreation centers, organized sports, and athletic
programming, provided that up to two-fifths of this 25 percent may
be allocated by the Recreation and Park Department to communitybased organizations for Active Recreation Programs, with a priority on
programs serving low-income and underserved communities; and
(D) 10 percent to be allocated through the
Department of Public Health to fund grants to community-based
organizations for programs that support (i) healthy food access;
(ii) active recreation; (iii) oral health; (iv) chronic disease prevention;
and for public education campaigns.
Should any of the above governmental entities cease to exist, or if
Eligible Programs are transferred from any of these entities to another
department or agency, then the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors
are authorized to expend the proceeds of this Tax to any department
or agency that is a successor to that entity and that operates Eligible
Programs, or to a department or agency to which those Eligible
Programs are transferred, for expenditures that would otherwise be
authorized under this Article 8.
(b) Any balance remaining in the Fund at the close of any
fiscal year shall be deemed to have been provided for a specified
purpose within the meaning of Section 9.113(a) of the Charter and shall
be carried forward and accumulated in the Fund for the purposes and
goals recited in this Article 8.
(c) Goals. The goals of expenditures from the Fund shall be to:
(1) Promote active recreation, health, nutrition, and food
access programs among all San Francisco residents;
38-EN-N14-CP206
(2) Improve physical activity, health, and nutrition
programs in the San Francisco Unified School District; and
(3) Give special consideration to communities that are
disproportionately affected by diseases related to Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage consumption, including obesity, diabetes, and coronary
disease, as measured by the most recent data available to the
Department of Public Health.
(d) New Programs. The intent of this Section 557 is to provide
dedicated revenues to increase Eligible Programs. Therefore, except
as otherwise specified in this Article 8, revenues in the Fund may
only be appropriated to the extent that the Controller certifies that
appropriations contained in the adopted budget from other funding
sources exceed those in a given year, as measured and adjusted by the
Controller pursuant to this Section 557, subsection (e).
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, Eligible Programs
shall not include:
(1) Any program for which a fixed or minimum level of
expenditure is mandated by state or federal law, to the extent of the fixed
or minimum level of expenditure;
(2) Acquisition of any capital item not for primary and
direct use of participants in an Eligible Program;
(3) Acquisition (other than by lease for a term of ten years
or less) of any real property; or
(4) Maintenance, utilities, or any similar operating costs
of any facility not used primarily and directly by participants in Eligible
Programs, or a library, hospital, or any recreation or park facility that
is a zoo.
(e) Expenditure After Baseline Year. No Funds shall be
expended pursuant to subsection (a)(3) in any fiscal year following a
fiscal year in which the amounts appropriated for Eligible Programs
(not including appropriations from the Fund and exclusive of
expenditures mandated by state or federal law) is below the amount
expended for City-operated Eligible Programs and City-funded grants
for Eligible Programs in the Baseline Year, as adjusted in the manner
provided in the following sentences (the “Base Amount”). All funds
unexpended in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be held in
the Fund and may be expended in any future fiscal year in which other
expenditures from the Fund may be made. The Controller shall adjust
the Base Amount for each fiscal year after the Baseline Year based on
calculations consistent from fiscal year to fiscal year by the percentage
increase or decrease in aggregate City discretionary revenues. In
determining aggregate City discretionary revenues, the Controller shall
only include revenues received by the City that are unrestricted and may
be used at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any
lawful City purpose. The method used by the Controller to determine
discretionary revenues shall be consistent with the method used by
the Controller to determine the Library and Children’s Fund Baseline
calculations, as provided in Charter Section 16.108(g). The change in
aggregate discretionary revenues will be adjusted at year end when
final revenues are known.
(f) Commencing January 1, 2017, the Controller shall file
annually with the Board of Supervisors, by January 1 of each year, a
report containing the following:
(1) The amount of funds collected and expended, and the
allocation of expenditures from the Fund, during the prior fiscal year.
(2) The status of any Eligible Program required or
authorized to be funded under this Article 8.
(3) Such other information as the Controller, in the
Controller’s sole discretion, shall deem relevant to the operation of this
Article 8.
SEC. 558. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
(a) There is hereby established a Healthy Nutrition and
Physical Activity Access Fund Committee that shall consist of fifteen
members. Members shall have two-year terms but shall serve at the
pleasure of their respective appointing authorities. No member shall
38-EN-N14-CP207
serve more than three consecutive two-year terms. The initial two-year
term for each of the initial members shall commence as of the date that
nine members have been appointed, which is when the Committee may
begin its work. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, a quorum of
the Committee shall be eight members. Absence from three consecutive
regular meetings, or four regular meetings during a fiscal year,
constitutes resignation from the Committee.
(b) Members of the Committee shall be appointed as follows:
(1) Seats One through Five by the Board of
Supervisors. Seats One and Two shall be residents of neighborhoods
disproportionately impacted by diseases related to the consumption
of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, as measured by the most recent data
available to the Department of Public Health. Seats Three and Four
shall be representatives of different local medical institutions that
engage in whole or in part in the diagnosis, treatment, or research of, or
education about, chronic diseases linked to the consumption of SugarSweetened Beverages. Seat Five shall be a small business owner.
(2) Seat Six by the Food Security Task Force, who may be
a member of the Food Security Task Force.
(3) Seats Seven and Eight by the San Francisco
Youth Commission, who may be members of the Youth Commission.
Appointees to Seats Seven and Eight must be 18 years of age or younger
at the commencement of the initial term, and at the commencement of
any succeeding term.
(4) Seats Nine and Ten by the San Francisco Unified
School District. Seat Nine shall be a School District employee working
in the area of Nutrition Services; Seat Ten shall be a School District
employee working in the area of physical education.
(5) Seats Eleven and Twelve by the Department of
Public Health. Seat Eleven shall be a professional employee in that
Department; Seat Twelve shall be an expert in oral health issues.
(6) Seat Thirteen by the Department of Children, Youth,
and their Families, who shall be a professional employee in that
Department.
(7) Seat Fourteen by the Recreation and Park
Department, who shall be a professional employee in that Department.
(8) Seat Fifteen by the San Francisco Unified School
District’s Parent Advisory Council.
(c) Members of the Committee shall serve without pay, but may
be reimbursed for expenses actually incurred. The City Administrator
shall provide clerical assistance and administrative support to the
Committee, and the Controller shall provide it with technical assistance.
All City departments, boards, and commissions shall reasonably assist
and cooperate with the Committee.
(d) The Committee shall meet at least six times per fiscal year,
except that during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, it shall meet at
least three times.
(e) The Committee shall evaluate the impact of the Tax on
beverage prices, consumer purchasing behavior, and health outcomes.
The Committee shall advise and make recommendations to the Mayor,
Board of Supervisors, and City departments receiving monies from the
Fund, on the use and expenditure of monies from the Fund consistent
with the findings, purpose, and goals stated in this Article 8.
(f) The Committee shall evaluate existing and past
programming to identify existing and emerging needs and shall adopt a
strategic plan by December 1 of each fifth year to inform the use of the
Fund. The initial strategic plan shall be adopted by December 1, 2016.
(g) The Committee shall submit to the Board of Supervisors, no
later than March 15 of each fiscal year, an annual expenditure plan for
the Fund based on the strategic plan adopted pursuant to this Section.
The initial annual expenditure plan shall be submitted no later than
March 15, 2017.
(h) Unless otherwise reauthorized by the Board of Supervisors,
this Section shall expire by operation of law, and the Committee shall
terminate, as of December 31, 2020. After that date, the City Attorney
shall cause this Section to be removed from the Administrative Code.
Legal Text – Proposition E and F
207
SEC. 559. AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE.
The Board of Supervisors may only amend or repeal this Article
8 without a vote of the people in response to an agency or court ruling
concerning the validity or scope of the Tax. Any amendment that
increases the amount or rate of tax beyond the levels authorized by
this Ordinance, or that changes the allocation of funds for which the
proceeds of the Tax are expended, may not take effect unless approved
by a two-thirds vote of the people.
SEC. 560. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of
this Article 8 is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of the Article. If imposition of the
Tax on any person or activities is held to be invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, the Tax shall continue to be
imposed in all other respects. The people of the City and County of
San Francisco hereby declare that they would have enacted this Article
and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and
word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any other portion of this Article would be subsequently declared invalid
or unconstitutional and would have imposed this Tax in all other
respects.
SEC. 561. OPERATIVE DATE.
This Article 8 shall become operative on January 1, 2016, except
that Sections 556 and 558 of this Article 8 shall become operative on
January 1, 2015.
Section 3. Effective Date. The effective date of this ordinance
shall be ten days after the date the official vote count is declared by the
Board of Supervisors.
Proposition F
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San
Francisco.
SECTION 1. Title.
This Initiative shall be known and may be cited as the “Union
Iron Works Historic District Housing, Waterfront Parks, Jobs and Preservation Initiative” (referred to hereinafter as the “Initiative”).
SECTION 2. Findings & Conclusions.
The People of the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”)
declare their findings and purposes in enacting this Initiative to be as
follows:
(a)Revitalize the former industrial site that is currently asphalt
lots and deteriorating buildings behind chain link fences that prohibit
public access to the waterfront and provide long overdue improvements
which will benefit the community between Mission Bay and Bayview
Hunters Point as well as the City as a whole. A map of the former
industrial site, which is a 28-acre portion of the Union Iron Works
Historic District (“Historic District”), referred to hereinafter as the
“Project Site,” is attached for reference as Exhibit A. The “Project Site”
is generally bounded by 22nd St to the south, 20th St to the north, the
San Francisco Bay to the east and Michigan St to the west. The drawing
below shows the Project Site as it exists today:
208
Legal Text – Proposition F
38-EN-N14-CP208
(g) Provide substantial new and renovated space for arts, cultural,
non-profits, small-scale manufacturing, local retail and neighborhood
services. The drawing below shows the Project Site as it will be revitalized if this Initiative is approved:
(b) Establish nine (9) acres of waterfront parks, playgrounds and
recreational facilities on and adjacent to the Project Site, more than
tripling the amount of parks in the Dogpatch neighborhood.
(c)Create 300 to 600 new affordable middle- and working-class
homes, comprising 30% of all new homes, which is more than twice as
much affordable housing as the City requires. A majority of all residential units will be rental housing.
(d) Guarantee public access to the new waterfront parks by setting new buildings back at least 100 feet from the shoreline.
(e)Restore and reuse currently deteriorating historic structures
essential to the creation of a new National Register Historic District.
(f)Modify the site zoning to adjust the height limit to 90 feet,
which is lower than the tallest point at the tallest historic building
already at the Project Site. The Project Site would include buildings
ranging from two stories to nine stories.
(h) Preserve the artist community currently located in the Noonan
Building in new state-of-the-art, on-site space that is affordable, functional and aesthetic. Rent on the new space will be based on the Port’s
current parameter rent schedule for the Noonan Building inflated to the
date the new space is available, and thereafter as outlined in a Community Benefits Agreement. The Noonan Building community will
continuously be accommodated within the new Historic District during
any transition period associated with construction of new space.
(i) Create an estimated 10,000 permanent jobs and 11,000 temporary construction jobs.
(j) Invest over $200 million in improvements in transportation
and other infrastructure critical to serving the Project Site, the new
Historic District, the historic ship repair operations and the surrounding
38-EN-N14-CP209
neighborhood, including protecting this portion of the City’s shoreline
from sea level rise.
(k) In addition to 300 to 600 affordable units, the Project will
generate approximately $15 million in revenue to support the rebuild of
public housing facilities, such as the nearby Potrero Annex and Potrero
Terrace public housing communities.
(m) There has been an 8-year community-based planning process
to establish goals, priorities and guidelines for the revitalization of
the former industrial Project Site. Planning for the Project Site has
undergone extensive public outreach and community review, including
hosting dozens of public events – with a combined attendance of over
10,000 individuals. A term sheet for the development of the Project Site
was endorsed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in June 2013
by a unanimous vote.
(n) Overall, revival of the Project Site will provide an integrated
and complementary mix of parks, housing, local retail, arts light industrial and office uses. All of these benefits will be paid for from revenues
created by the project and will not rely on a single dollar of funding
from the City’s General Fund.
SECTION 3. Purposes.
In light of the findings set forth in Section 2 above, the purpose
of this Initiative is to express the voters’ intent that the City and other
applicable agencies proceed with any required environmental review
and planning analysis for the revitalization of the Project Site to provide
tangible benefits for the area between Mission Bay and Bayview Hunters Point in particular and the City generally. As a first step, the voters
wish to approve adjustments to the existing height limits, establish policies to guide the revitalization planning efforts, and encourage all local,
state and federal agencies with applicable jurisdiction to take all steps
necessary to proceed with the development of the Project Site consistent
with this Initiative. Upon adoption of this measure, the revitalization of
the Project Site will undergo the same scrutiny, review, analysis and legal approvals required of any development project in San Francisco and
the extensive community-based planning process will continue to afford
significant opportunities for public participation and input.
SECTION 4. Governmental and Public Review of Development Plan.
This measure does not in any way substitute, deny, alter, circumvent, subjugate or abbreviate the thorough review and public approvals
process for redevelopment at the Project Site, including but not limited
to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”). The sole legislative change made by this Initiative is to
modify the height limit for the Project Site and no project can be developed on the Project Site without Port Commission approval of a development plan and implementation actions by the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors. Specifically, implementation of any development plan will require continuation of the extensive community-based
planning process as well as public approvals from the City, the Planning
Commission and the Port Commission, including conforming amendments to the City’s General Plan, the Planning Code and the Waterfront
Land Use Plan, following environmental review under CEQA.
Voter approval of this Planning Code modification does not allow
for any development to occur on the Project Site without a full and comprehensive environmental review process, including an EIR as required
by CEQA. Voter approval of this Planning Code modification satisfies, only for the Project Site, the requirements of Proposition B (Voter
Approval for Waterfront Development Height Increases) considered
by City voters in June 2014, but does not apply to or otherwise provide
any voter authorization for other properties owned by the Port of San
Francisco.
Legal Text – Proposition F
209
Further, under federal and state laws, aspects of the development plan may also be reviewed by various regional, state and federal
agencies, which may include the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission. In particular, Chapter 477 of the Statutes of
2011 (the “Pier 70 Exchange Act”) authorizes the State Lands Commission to approve a public trust exchange, subject to satisfaction of the
requirements of the Pier 70 Exchange Act, and authorizes the Port Commission to administer and manage the Project Site in accordance with
the requirements of the Pier 70 Exchange Act. Nothing in this Initiative
is intended to supersede, affect or conflict with the authority of the State
Lands Commission or the Port Commission under the Pier 70 Exchange
Act, the public trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries, the Burton
Act (Chapter 1333 of the Statutes of 1968) or any other regional, state
or federal agency having jurisdiction to review and approve the development plan to the extent provided under all applicable laws.
SECTION 5. Planning Code Amendment
(a) Subject to Section 11(b) of this Ordinance (Effective Date),
Part II, Chapter II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning
Code) is hereby amended by amending the Zoning Map Sheet HT08 to
enact the following change to the height and bulk district classification
as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit B:
Description of Property
The property in the area generally bounded by Michigan Street to the
west, 22nd Street to the south, 20th Street to the north and one hundred
feet landward of the San Francisco Bay shoreline to the east, as shown
on the map attached hereto, being a portion of Assessor’s Blocks 4110,
4120, 4111 and 4052
Height and Bulk Districts to be Superseded
40-X
Height and Bulk Districts to be Approved
90-X
SECTION 6. Policies.
It is the Policy of the People of the City that, subject to the
public review process generally described in Section 4 above, the
City shall encourage the timely development of the Project Site with a
development project that includes the following major uses, together
with supporting transportation and other infrastructure improvements
(collectively, the “Project”): (i) Nine (9) acres of waterfront parks,
playgrounds and recreation opportunities on and adjacent to the Project
Site, including providing children’s playground facilities to one of
the most underserved neighborhoods in the City, more than tripling
the amount of parks in the neighborhood; (ii) New below market-rate
homes affordable to middle- and low-income families and individuals,
representing 30% of all new housing units, which is more than double
the amount of affordable housing generally required by the City; (iii)
Construction of between approximately 1,000 and 2,000 new housing
units, a majority of which will be rental homes; (iv) Restoration and reuse of currently deteriorating historic structures essential to the creation
of a new Union Iron Works Historic District; (v) Substantial new and
renovated space for arts, cultural, small-scale manufacturing, local retail
and neighborhood services; (vi) Preservation of the artist community
currently located in the Noonan Building by providing new state-ofthe-art, on-site space that is affordable, functional and aesthetic at rents
based on the Port’s current parameter rent schedule for the Noonan
Building inflated to the date the new space is available, and thereafter
as outlined in a Community Benefits Agreement, and by continuing to
accommodate the Noonan Building community within the new Historic
District during any transition period associated with construction of
new space; (vii) Between approximately 1,000,0000 and 2,000,000
square feet of new commercial and office space (which is in addition to
210
Legal Text – Proposition F
reuse of historic structures); and (viii) Accessory parking facilities and
other transportation infrastructure as part of an innovative transportation demand management program that enhances mobility in the district
and neighborhood. Development of the Project Site will be subject to
urban and architectural design guidelines that will encourage a range of
building heights between 2 to 9 stories and promote high quality design
of buildings and parks.
It is the Policy of the People of the City that the development of
the Project Site should also provide significant economic benefits to the
City, which include: (i) significant job creation (currently estimated at
10,000 permanent jobs and 11,000 temporary construction jobs); (ii)
investment of over $200 million in improvements in transportation and
other infrastructure critical to serving the Project Site, adjacent Historic
District structures, the historic ship repair operations and the surrounding neighborhood, including protecting this portion of the City’s shoreline from sea level rise; and (iii) generating approximately $15 million
in revenue to support the rebuild of public housing facilities, such as the
nearby Potrero Annex and Potrero Terrace communities. Furthermore, it
is the Policy of the People of the City that the City shall timely provide
transit and transportation infrastructure and service needed for the cumulative growth that has, is and will be occurring in the neighborhoods
including and surrounding the Project Site. Additionally, this Initiative
seeks the approval of the voters for increases in height as detailed in
Section 5, to comply with Proposition B or any subsequent measure
adopted by the voters or the Board of Supervisors and applicable to the
Project Site that would require voter approval for building heights.
SECTION 7. Implementing Actions.
The People of the City encourage the City, the Port Commission
and other public agencies with applicable jurisdiction to proceed to implement this Initiative, including, but not limited to, adopting land use
controls for the Project Site and amending its General Plan and other
relevant plans and codes consistent with the Policies set forth in Section
6 above, subject to the thorough review process generally described in
Section 4 above.
As a result of the public process generally described in Section 4
above and certain variables, including, for example and without limitation, market changes, and economic feasibility, the final development
plan for the Project Site may be materially different from the Project
and the boundaries of the Project Site may be materially different from
those identified on Exhibit A. The People of the City encourage the
Board of Supervisors and other public agencies with applicable jurisdiction to approve such final development plans at the conclusion of the
review process generally described in Section 4 above, so long as the
Board of Supervisors and the Mayor then determine that such plans are
generally consistent on balance with the Policies set forth in Section 6
above.
SECTION 8. Interpretation.
This Act must be interpreted so as to be consistent with all
federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. It is the intent of the voters that the provisions of this Act be interpreted or implemented in a
manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Act. The title of this
Initiative and the captions preceding the sections of this Initiative are for
convenience of reference only. Such title and captions shall not define
or limit the scope or purpose of any provision of this Initiative. The use
of the terms “including,” “such as” or words of similar import when
following any general term, statement or matter shall not be construed
to limit such term, statement or matter to the specific items or matters,
whether or not language of non-limitation is used. Rather, such terms
shall be deemed to refer to all other items or matters that could reasonably fall within the broadest possible scope of such statement, term or
matter. The use of the term “or” shall be construed to mean and/or.
38-EN-N14-CP210
SECTION 9. Severability.
If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be
affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the
provisions of this Act are severable. The voters declare that this Act,
and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion
thereof, would have been adopted or passed irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, part,
or portion is found to be invalid. If any provision of this Act is held
invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity does
not affect any application of this Act that can be given effect without the
invalid application.
SECTION 10. Conflicting Ballot Measures.
In the event that this Act and another measure or measures relating to height restrictions on the Project Site shall appear on the same
Citywide election ballot, the provisions of such other measures shall be
deemed to be in conflict with this Act. In the event that this Act shall
receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Act
shall prevail in their entirety and each and every provision of the other
measure or measures shall be null and void in their entirety. In the event
that the other measure or measures shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Act shall take effect to the extent
permitted by law.
SECTION 11. Effective Date.
(a) In accordance with the provisions of Municipal Elections
Code § 380 and California Elections Code § 9217, if a majority of the
voters vote in favor of the Initiative, the Initiative shall go into effect ten
days after the official vote count is declared by the Board of Supervisors, except as provided in subsection (b) hereto.
(b) The Planning Code amendment approved under Section 5
hereof shall not become effective unless and until the Port Commission, after compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
approves a development plan for the overall use of the Project Site
based upon findings of consistency with the Burton Act and the Pier 70
Exchange Act.
SECTION 12. Amendment.
Pursuant to Municipal Elections Code § 390 and California Elections Code § 9217 the provisions of this Initiative set forth in Section
5 of this Initiative may only be amended by the voters of the City and
County of San Francisco.
38-EN-N14-CP211
Legal Text – Proposition F
211
212
Legal Text – Proposition F
38-EN-N14-CP212
38-EN-N14-CP213
Legal Text – Proposition F
213
214
Legal Text – Proposition G
Proposition G
Ordinance amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code to
impose a surtax on the transfer of certain residential real property
within five years of the prior transfer of the property, to exempt
certain transfers from the surtax, and to permit the Board of
Supervisors to exempt from the surtax and the existing tax imposed
under Article 12-C of the Business and Tax Regulations Code
transfers of real property subject to certain affordability-based
restrictions on the occupancy of the real property.
NOTE:Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain
font.
Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times
New Roman font.
Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times
New Roman font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged
Code subsections or parts of tables.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San
Francisco:
Section 1. Pursuant to Article XIIIC of the Constitution of the
State of California, this ordinance shall be submitted to the qualified
electors of the City and County of San Francisco, at the November 4,
2014 consolidated general election.
Section 2. Legislative Findings. The People of the City and
County of San Francisco find that:
(a) Home prices and market rents in San Francisco are among
the highest in the nation and are now beyond the reach of many San
Franciscans.
(b) Real estate speculation and the practice of “flipping”
apartment buildings is contributing to the shortage of affordable
housing, and imposes a severe social and economic burden on the City
and County of San Francisco and its taxpayers.
(c) Encouraging long-term ownership of apartment buildings
and providing secure tenancies increases neighborhood stability and the
health and well-being of the City.
(d) In addition to generating revenues for the City’s general fund,
imposing a surtax on transfers of multi-unit residential buildings within
five years of their acquisition is intended to discourage short-term real
estate speculation in San Francisco’s supply of housing.
Section 3. The San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations
Code is hereby amended by revising Sections 1102 and 1105, to read as
follows:
SEC. 1102. TAX IMPOSED.
(a) There is hereby imposed on each deed, instrument or
writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within
the City and County of San Francisco shall be granted, assigned,
transferred or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser
or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his or her or their
direction, when the consideration or value of the interest or property
conveyed (not excluding the value of any lien or encumbrances
remaining thereon at the time of sale) (i1) exceeds $100.00 but is
less than or equal to $250,000.00, a tax at the rate of $2.50 for each
$500.00 or fractional part thereof; or (ii2) more than $250,000.00 and
less than $1,000,000.00, a tax at the rate of $3.40 for each $500.00 or
fractional part thereof for the entire value or consideration, including,
but not limited to, any portion of such value or consideration that
is less than $250,000.00; or (iii3) at least $1,000,000.00 and less
than $5,000,000.00, a tax at the rate of $3.75 for each $500.00 or
fractional part thereof for the entire value or consideration, including,
but not limited to, any portion of such value or consideration that
is less than $1,000,000.00; or (iv4) at least $5,000,000.00 and less
38-EN-N14-CP214
than $10,000,000.00, a tax at the rate of $10.00 for each $500.00 or
fractional part thereof for the entire value or consideration, including,
but not limited to, any portion of such value or consideration that is less
than $5,000,000.00; or (v5) at least $10,000,000.00 and above, a tax
at the rate of $12.50 for each $500.00 or fractional part thereof for the
entire value or consideration, including but not limited to, any portion
of such value or consideration that is less than $10,000,000.00. The
People of the City and County of San Francisco authorize the Board of
Supervisors to enact ordinances, without further voter approval, that
will exempt rent-restricted affordable housing, as the Board may define
that term, from the increased tax rate in subsections (iv4) and (v5).
(b) In addition to the tax imposed by subsection (a) of this
Section, there is hereby imposed on each deed, instrument or writing
by which any residential lands, tenements, or other realty sold within
the City and County of San Francisco shall be granted, assigned,
transferred or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or
purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his or her or their
direction, when the time since the prior conveyance of the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold (1) is less than 1 year, a surtax at a
rate of $120.00 for each $500.00 or fractional part thereof of the
consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (not
excluding the value of any lien or encumbrances remaining thereon at
the time of sale); or (2) is greater than or equal to 1 year but less than
2 years, a surtax at a rate of $110.00 for each $500.00 or fractional
part thereof of the consideration or value of the interest or property
conveyed (not excluding the value of any lien or encumbrances
remaining thereon at the time of sale); or (3) is greater than or equal
to 2 years but less than 3 years, a surtax at a rate of $100.00 for each
$500.00 or fractional part thereof of the consideration or value of the
interest or property conveyed (not excluding the value of any lien or
encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale); or (4) is greater
than or equal to 3 years but less than 4 years, a surtax at a rate of
$90.00 for each $500.00 or fractional part thereof of the consideration
or value of the interest or property conveyed (not excluding the value
of any lien or encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale);
or (5) is greater than or equal to 4 years but less than 5 years, a
surtax at a rate of $70.00 for each $500.00 or fractional part thereof
of the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (not
excluding the value of any lien or encumbrances remaining thereon at
the time of sale). This surtax shall apply only to the portion of the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold that was part of the prior conveyance of
the lands, tenements, or other realty sold. The surtax imposed on any
deed, instrument or writing conveying lands, tenements, or other realty
sold, only a part of which is subject to the surtax, shall be determined in
accordance with subsection (e) of this Section.
(c) For purposes of this Article, “the prior conveyance of the
lands, tenements, or other realty sold” shall mean the most recent
conveyance of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold, whether
conveyed on its own or as part of a larger conveyance, that was subject
to tax under this Article, except that a conveyance subject to tax under
Section 1108.2 of this Article because the consideration for such
conveyance exceeded the unpaid debt shall not be considered a prior
conveyance of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold for purposes of
this Article.
(d) For purposes of this Section only, any lands, tenements,
or other realty sold shall be deemed to be “residential” to the extent
that the property is used, available for use, designed, and/or intended,
both on the date of the prior conveyance of the lands, tenements, or
other realty sold, and on the date of the current conveyance of the
lands, tenements, or other realty sold, for the primary purpose of
dwelling, sleeping, and/or lodging other than as a hotel licensed under
Section 302(c) of the Housing Code. The surtax imposed on any deed,
instrument or writing conveying lands, tenements, or other realty sold,
only a part of which is residential, shall be determined in accordance
with subsection (e) of this Section.
(e) The surtax imposed pursuant to subsection (b) of this Section
that is imposed on any deed, instrument or writing conveying lands,
tenements, or other realty sold, only a part of which is subject to the
surtax, shall be calculated by multiplying the applicable rate by a
38-EN-N14-CP215
tax base determined by multiplying the consideration or value of the
entire interest or property conveyed (not excluding the value of any
lien or encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale) by a
fraction, the numerator of which is the square-footage of the portion
of the improvements on the lands, tenements, or other realty sold the
conveyance of which is subject to the surtax, and the denominator of
which is the total square-footage of the improvements on the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold. For purposes of this subsection (e), the
square footage of improvements on the lands, tenements, or other realty
sold shall not include the square footage of any common areas.
(f) For purposes of this Article and unless specifically stated
otherwise, all references to the “tax,” “transfer tax,” or “levy”
imposed pursuant to this Article shall include the tax imposed pursuant
to subsection (a) of this Section and the surtax imposed pursuant to
subsection (b) of this Section. Any requirement in this Article that “not
more than one tax shall be imposed pursuant to this Article,” including
the reference in Section 1108(c) of this Article, shall permit the
imposition of both one tax and one surtax.
SEC. 1105. EXEMPTIONS.
(a) Any deed, instrument or writing to which the United States or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, any state or territory, or political
subdivision thereof, is a party shall be exempt from any tax imposed
pursuant to this Article ordinance when the exempt agency is acquiring
title.
(b) Any deed, instrument or writing shall be exempt from up to
one-third (1/3) of any tax imposed pursuant to this Article ordinance
if: (1) it transfers an interest in real property used as a residence; and
(2) after January 1, 2009, the transferor has installed an active solar
system, as that term is defined in Revenue & Taxation Code § 73(b), or
has made seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements utilizing
earthquake hazard mitigation technologies, as those terms are defined in
Revenue & Taxation Code § 74.5(b), and the transferor has claimed and
the Assessor has approved an exclusion from reassessment for the value
of that system or those improvements. This partial exemption shall
only apply to the initial transfer by the person who installed the active
solar system or made the seismic safety improvements. The amount of
this partial exemption shall not exceed the transferor’s cost of seismic
retrofitting improvements or the active solar system. Multi-family
residential properties are eligible for this partial exemption.
(c) Any deed, instrument or writing shall be exempt from the
surtax imposed pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 1102 of this Article
to the extent that:
(1) The lands, tenements, or other realty sold was conveyed
within one year of the death of a record owner of at least 20 percent of
the lands, tenements, or other realty sold.
(2) The lands, tenements, or other realty sold is subject to a
regulatory agreement, recorded deed restriction, or other document that
contains either of the following conditions: (A) Restricts occupancy to
households with incomes not exceeding 120 percent of the area median
income of the HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) that contains
San Francisco; or (B) Restricts occupancy to households where the
average income of all households in the lands, tenements, or other
realty sold does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income of
the HMFA that contains San Francisco. Such restrictions must have a
minimum remaining term of 15 years at the time the lands, tenements,
or other realty sold is conveyed, or the taxpayer must demonstrate
that the affordability term was extended for a minimum of 20 years
as part of the conveyance. At the time that any taxpayer claims the
exemption under this subsection (c)(2), the taxpayer must submit to
the Recorder a certification from the Mayor’s Office of Housing, or its
successor, confirming that the lands, tenements, or other realty sold met
the requirements described in this subsection (c)(2) at the time of the
conveyance of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold.
(3) The lands, tenements, or other realty sold was a
single-family residence both on the date of the prior conveyance of the
lands, tenements, or other realty sold, and on the date of the current
conveyance of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold. For purposes
Legal Text – Proposition G
215
of this subsection (c), a “single-family residence” includes only lands,
tenements, or other realty sold that comprises either a single-family
home or a single unit on a separate parcel or separately subdivided or
converted parcel, as the terms “unit” and “conversion” are defined
in Section 1308 of the Subdivision Code, and shall not include: (A)
any lands, tenements, or other realty sold that contains an accessory
dwelling unit or in-law unit authorized pursuant to Sections 207.3 or
715.1 of the Planning Code, or similar provisions enacted after the
effective date of this ordinance; or (B) any interest in a tenancy-incommon.
(4) The lands, tenements, or other realty sold is new
housing. For purposes of this subsection (c)(4), “new housing”
includes only a residential unit that did not exist at the time of the prior
conveyance of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold, to the extent
that the additional unit increases the square-footage of residential living
space on the lands, tenements, or other realty sold from the squarefootage of residential living space at the time of the prior conveyance
of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold. For purposes of this
subsection (c)(4), “residential” has the same meaning as defined in
Section 1102 of this Article.
(5) A record owner of at least 10 percent of the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold has resided in the lands, tenements,
or other realty sold as his or her principal place of residence for at
least one year immediately preceding the conveyance. For purposes
of this subsection (c)(5), a person may have only one “principal place
of residence,” which shall mean the owner’s permanent or primary
home that the owner occupies for more than a temporary or transitory
purpose. Evidence that the lands, tenements, or other realty sold is the
owner’s principal place of residence includes, but is not limited to, the
following factors, a compilation of which lends greater credibility to
the claim that the lands, tenements, or other realty sold is the owner’s
“principal place of residence:”
(A) The lands, tenements, or other realty sold is listed
as the owner’s place of residence on any motor vehicle registration,
driver’s license, voter registration, or with any public agency, including
Federal, State, and local taxing authorities;
(B) Utilities at the lands, tenements, or other realty
sold are billed to and paid by the owner;
(C) All of the owner’s personal possessions have been
moved into the lands, tenements, or other realty sold;
(D) The owner has obtained a homeowner’s tax
exemption for property tax purposes with respect to the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold;
(E) The owner has requested a change of address to
the address of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold with the United
States Postal Service;
(G) The lands, tenements, or other realty sold is the
place to which the owner normally returns as his or her home, exclusive
of military service, hospitalization, vacation, travel necessitated by
employment or education, or other reasonable temporary periods of
absence;
(H) The owner has given notice at his or her prior
residence that he or she was moving into the lands, tenements, or other
realty sold;
(I) The owner sold or placed on the market for sale
the residence that he or she occupied prior to occupying the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold; and/or
(J) The owner provides affidavits or testimony from
individuals with personal knowledge that the owner occupies the
lands, tenements, or other realty sold as his or her principal place of
residence.
(6) The lands, tenements, or other realty sold contains more
than 30 separate residential units. For purposes of this subsection (c)
(6), “residential” has the same meaning as defined in Section 1102 of
this Article.
(7) The lands, tenements, or other realty sold contains no
more than two dwelling units, and each of the following conditions is
met:
216
Legal Text – Proposition G and H
38-EN-N14-CP216
(A) on or before July 1, 2014, the owner conveying
the lands, tenements, or other realty sold has applied for a first building
permit from the Department of Building Inspection, or planning
approval from the Planning Department, with respect to the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold; and
(B) the total construction cost of the first building
permit described in paragraph (7)(A) and any subsequent permits
applied for with respect to the lands, tenements, or other realty sold is
$500,000 or more; and
(C) the last permit issued by the Department of
Building Inspection as described in paragraphs (7)(A) and (7)(B) was
issued within one year preceding the date that the lands, tenements, or
other realty sold is conveyed.
(8) The consideration or value of the interest or property
conveyed (not excluding the value of any lien or encumbrances
remaining thereon at the time of sale) that is otherwise subject to the
surtax in subsection (b) of Section 1102 of this Article is less than
or equal to the consideration or value of such interest or property
conveyed (not excluding the value of any lien or encumbrance
remaining thereon at the time of sale) at the time of the prior
conveyance of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold. For purposes
of this subsection (c)(8), where the lands, tenements, or other realty sold
the conveyance of which is otherwise subject to the surtax in subsection
(b) of Section 1102 of this Article is only a portion of the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold in the prior conveyance of the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold, there shall be a rebuttable presumption
that “the consideration or value of such interest or property conveyed
(not excluding the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon
at the time of sale) at the time of the prior conveyance of the lands,
tenements, or other realty sold” equals the total consideration or value
of the entire interest or property conveyed (not excluding the value of
any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) at the
time of the prior conveyance of the lands, tenements, or other realty
sold multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the square
footage of the improvements on the lands, tenements, or other realty
sold that is currently being conveyed and the conveyance of which is
otherwise subject to the surtax in subsection (b) of Section 1102 of this
Article, and the denominator of which is the total square footage of the
improvements on the entire lands, tenements, or other realty sold in the
prior conveyance of the lands, tenements, or other realty sold.
(d) In addition to the exemption in subsection (c)(2) of this
Section, the People of the City and County of San Francisco authorize
the Board of Supervisors to enact ordinances, without further voter
approval, that exempt from the tax imposed pursuant to subsection
(a) of Section 1102 of this Article and the surtax imposed pursuant to
subsection (b) of Section 1102 of this Article any deed, instrument or
writing conveying lands, tenements, or other realty sold that is subject
to a regulatory agreement, recorded deed restriction, or other document
that imposes affordability-based restrictions on the occupancy of the
lands, tenements, or other realty sold that are specifically enumerated
by the Board, whether those affordability-based restrictions are in place
at the time of the conveyance or are put in place subsequent to the
conveyance, as determined by the Board.
(e) The surtax imposed pursuant to subsection (b) of Section
1102 of this Article on any deed, instrument or writing conveying lands,
tenements, or other realty sold, only a part of which is exempt under
this Section, shall be determined in accordance with subsection (e) of
Section 1102 of this Article.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of the ordinance. The People of the City and County of San
Francisco hereby declare that they would have passed this ordinance
and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and
word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any other portion of this ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance,
the People of the City and County of San Francisco intend to amend
only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections, articles,
numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams, or any other constituent
parts of the Municipal Code that are explicitly shown in this ordinance
as additions or deletions, in accordance with the “Note” that appears
under the official title of the ordinance.
Therefore, the people of the City and County of San Francisco declare
that:
Section 6. No Conflict with Federal or State Law. Nothing
in this ordinance shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any
requirement, power, or duty in conflict with any federal or state law.
Section 7. Effective and Operative Date. The effective date of
this ordinance shall be ten days after the date the official vote count
is declared by the Board of Supervisors. This ordinance shall become
operative on January 1, 2015.
* * *
Proposition H
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Golden Gate
Park Recreational Fields Renovation Act”
SECTION 2. Findings and Declarations
The People of the City and County of San Francisco declare their findings and purposes in enacting this Initiative to be as follows:
Whereas, San Francisco maintains an extensive system of parks for the
benefit of all the People of San Francisco;
Whereas, Golden Gate Park is the centerpiece of San Francisco’s worldrenowned park system;
Whereas, the Golden Gate Master Plan states that Golden Gate Park is
naturalistic in character, “designed and managed to afford opportunities
for all to experience beauty, tranquility, recreation, and relief from urban
pressures”;
Whereas, the mission of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department includes maintaining safe recreational playing fields which also
preserve the natural environment for the well-being of San Francisco’s
diverse community;
Whereas, there is a large body of scientific evidence that artificial turf
fields such as those proposed for Golden Gate Park pose an environmental and health threat;
Whereas, light pollution produced by nighttime sports field lighting
negatively impacts human health, wildlife activity, and the surrounding
environment;
All athletic fields in Golden Gate Park in the area west of Crossover
Drive shall be maintained as natural grass. The City shall not permit
nighttime sports field lighting in these areas.
38-EN-N14-CP217
SECTION 3. Golden Gate Park Recreational Fields Renovation Act
Requirement
Appendix 103 is added to the San Francisco Administrative Code as
follows: All athletic fields in Golden Gate Park in the area west of
Crossover Drive shall be maintained as natural grass. The City shall not
permit nighttime sports field lighting in these areas.
SECTION 4. Effective Date
In accordance with the provisions of California Elections Code section
9217, if a majority of the voters vote in favor of the Initiative, the Initiative shall go into effect 10 days after the vote is declared by the Board
of Supervisors.
SECTION 5. Severability
If any provision of this Initiative or any application thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect
any provision or application of this Initiative that can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions
of this Initiative are severable.
Proposition I
Ordinance amending the Park Code to authorize renovation of
children’s playgrounds, walking trails and athletic fields where a
certified environmental impact report documents at least doubling
in anticipated usage.
NOTE:Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain
font.
Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times
New Roman font.
Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times
New Roman font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged
Code subsections or parts of tables.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San
Francisco:
Section 1. The Park Code is hereby amended by adding Article 14
to read as follows:
ARTICLE 14: INCREASED USAGE OF CHILDREN’S
PLAYGROUNDS, WALKING TRAILS, AND ATHLETIC FIELDS ACT
SEC. 14.01. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.
The People of the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”)
hereby declare their findings and purposes in enacting this Act to be as
follows:
(a) The City does not have sufficient playgrounds for children,
public trails for walking and hiking, or fields for soccer, baseball,
softball and other youth and adult athletics to satisfy the needs of its
residents and visitors.
(b) Despite the overall shortage of children’s playgrounds, public
trails and athletic fields, some existing playgrounds, trails and fields are
significantly underutilized, but could be improved so that their use is
substantially increased throughout the year.
(c) Improvements to the City’s children’s playgrounds, walking
trails and athletic fields which have been the subject of a certified
Environmental Impact Report should be allowed if they would
significantly increase the usage of these sites.
SEC. 14.02. INCREASING PLAYGROUND, TRAIL AND FIELD
CAPACITY.
Legal Text – Proposition H and I
217
(a) In order to increase the usage of children’s playgrounds,
walking trails and athletic fields by members of the public,
notwithstanding any restriction on lighting or requirement for natural
grass, the City shall allow renovations to children’s playgrounds,
walking trails and athletic fields, including but not limited to the
installation of artificial turf and/or nighttime lighting on athletic fields,
where the renovation satisfies both of the following:
(1) The Recreation and Park Department has
determined, and an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)
has documented, that the renovation will at least double the
usage of the particular children’s playground, walking trail
or athletic fields by members of the public during a calendar
year; and
(2) An Environmental Impact Report for the renovation
of the particular children’s playground, walking trail or
athletic fields has been certified.
(b) The foregoing may be satisfied either before or after the
effective date of this Article.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Article shall
require or be construed to require completion of an EIR to renovate a
children’s playground, walking trail or athletic fields, unless an EIR is
otherwise required by law.
SEC. 14.03. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.
This Article is an exercise of the initiative power of the people of
the City and County of San Francisco for the protection of the health,
safety, and welfare of the people, and shall be liberally construed to
effectuate its purposes.
SEC. 14.04. AMENDMENT.
This Article may be amended to further its purposes by an
ordinance passed by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors and
signed by the Mayor.
SEC. 14.05. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional
by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The
People hereby declare that they would have passed this ordinance and
each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word
not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any
other portion of this ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
Section 2. Conflict with Other Measures. This Initiative will be
deemed to conflict with any other measure appearing on the same ballot
relating to the same subject matter, including any measure relating to
installing artificial turf or nighttime lighting on City athletic fields. In
the event that this Initiative and any other such measure(s) are approved
by the voters at the same election, and this Initiative receives a greater
number of affirmative votes than any other such measure(s), this
Initiative shall control in its entirety and the other measure(s) shall be
rendered void and without any legal effect. If this Initiative is approved
by a majority of the voters but does not receive a greater number of
affirmative votes than any other such measure(s), this Initiative shall
take effect to the extent permitted by law.
* * *
218
Legal Text – Proposition J
Proposition J
Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to increase the
minimum wage for employees in San Francisco to $12.25 per hour
on May 1, 2015, with annual increases, reaching $15.00 per hour
in 2018, followed thereafter by annual cost-of-living increases;
following 2015, provide only for annual cost-of-living increases in
the minimum wage for two narrow categories of employees; and
include the City government and In-Home Supportive Services
Public Authority as employers subject to the minimum wage
ordinance.
NOTE:Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain
font.
Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times
New Roman font.
Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics Times
New Roman font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged
Code subsections or parts of tables.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San
Francisco:
Section 1. The Administrative Code is hereby amended by
revising Chapter 12R, Sections 12R.3, 12R.4, 12R.7, 12R.10, 12R.11,
and 12R.17, to read as follows:
SEC. 12R.3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Chapter, the following capitalized terms shall
have the following meanings:
“Agency” shall mean the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement
or its successor agencyLiving Wage/Living Health Division of the Office
of Contract Administration or such other City department or agency as
the City shall by resolution designate.
“City” shall mean the City and County of San Francisco.
“Employee” shall mean any person who:
(a) In a particular week performs at least two (2) hours of work
for an Employer within the geographic boundaries of the City; and
(b) Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum
wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law, as
provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage
orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission, or is
a participant in a Welfare-to-Work Program.
“Employer” shall mean any person, as defined in Section 18 of
the California Labor Code, including corporate officers or executives,
who directly or indirectly or through an agent any other person,
including through the services of a temporary services or staffing
agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages,
hours or working conditions of any Employee. “Employer” shall
include the City and the San Francisco In-Home Supportive Services
Public Authority.
“Government Supported Employee” shall mean any Employee
who is: (1) under the age of 18 and is employed as an after-school or
summer Employee in a bona fide training or apprenticeship program in
a position that is subsidized by the federal, state, or local government ;
or (2) over the age 55 and is employed by a Non-Profit Corporation that
provides social welfare services as a core mission to individuals who
are over the age of 55 and is in a position that is subsidized by federal,
state, or local government. The second category shall apply only to
Non-Profit Corporations operating as of January 1, 2015, and apply
only as to the number of employees over the age of 55 holding positions
in the Corporation as of January 1, 2015 that are subsidized by federal,
state, or local government, plus 25% of that number. Any employees
hired by a Non-Profit Corporation after January 1, 2015 that exceed
the numerical threshold in the prior sentence (including the additional
25%) shall not qualify as “Government Supported Employees.”
If at any time the number of employees over the age of 55 holding
positions in the Corporation that are subsidized by federal, state, or
38-EN-N14-CP218
local government falls below that numerical threshold (including the
additional 25%), then those positions shall qualify as “Government
Supported Employee” positions.
“Minimum Wage” shall have the meaning set forth in Section
12R.4 of this Chapter.
“Small Business” shall mean an Employer for which fewer than
ten (10) persons perform work for compensation during a given week.
In determining the number of persons performing work for an Employer
during a given week, all persons performing work for compensation on
a full-time, part-time, or temporary basis shall be counted, including
persons made available to work through the services of a temporary
services or staffing agency or similar entity.
“Nonprofit Corporation” shall mean a nonprofit corporation, duly
organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the
jurisdiction of its incorporation and (if a foreign corporation) in good
standing under the laws of the State of California, which corporation
has established and maintains valid nonprofit status under Section
501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, and all rules and regulations promulgated under such Section.
“Welfare-to-Work Program” shall mean the City’s CalWORKS
Program, County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) which includes the
Personal Assisted Employment Services (PAES) Program, and General
Assistance Program, and any successor programs that are substantially
similar to them.
SEC. 12R.4. MINIMUM WAGE.
(a) Employers shall pay Employees no less than the Minimum
Wage for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the
City.
(1) Except as provided in subsection 12R.4(b), the
Minimum Wage paid to Employees shall be as follows:
(A) Beginning on May 1, 2015, the Minimum Wage
shall be an hourly rate of $12.25.
(B) Beginning on July 1, 2016, the Minimum Wage
shall be an hourly rate of $13.00.
(C) Beginning on July 1, 2017, the Minimum Wage
shall be an hourly rate of $14.00.
(D) Beginning on July 1, 2018, the Minimum Wage
shall be an hourly rate of $15.00.
(E) Beginning on July 1, 2019, and each year
thereafter, the Minimum Wage shall increase by an amount
corresponding to the prior year’s increase, if any, in the Consumer
Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the San
Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA metropolitan statistical area, as
determined by the Controller.
(b) Beginning on May 1, 2015, the Minimum Wage paid to
Government Supported Employees shall be an hourly rate of $12.25.
Beginning on July 1, 2016, and each year thereafter, the Minimum
Wage paid to Government Supported Employees shall increase by
an amount corresponding to the prior year’s increase, if any, in the
Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers
for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA metropolitan statistical
area, as determined by the Controller. the effective date of this Chapter,
the Minimum Wage shall be an hourly rate of $8.50. To prevent
inflation from eroding its value, beginning on January 1, 2005, and
each year thereafter, the Minimum Wage shall increase by an amount
corresponding to the prior year’s increase, if any, in the Consumer
Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the San
Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA metropolitan statistical area.
(c) The Minimum Wage for Employers that are Small Businesses
or Nonprofit Corporations shall phase in over a two year period in
order to afford such Employers time to adjust. For such Employers,
the effective date of this Chapter shall be January 1, 2005. For a
transition period beginning January 1, 2005 and ending December 31,
2005, the Minimum Wage for Employees of such Employers shall be an
hourly rate of $7.75. Beginning January 1, 2006, the Minimum Wage
for Employees of such Employers shall be the regular Minimum Wage
established pursuant to Section 4(b)1 of this Chapter.
* * * *
38-EN-N14-CP219
SEC. 12R.7. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Enforcement Priority. It is the policy of the City and County
of San Francisco that all employees be compensated fairly according
to the law and that Employers who engage in wage theft be held
accountable. Towards that end, the Mayor and Board of Supervisors
shall study and review the feasibility of enacting additional measures
consistent with state law to enhance the Agency’s enforcement tools
and the City’s efforts to combat wage theft. The Mayor and Board of
Supervisors shall also take steps to ensure optimal collaboration among
all City agencies and departments, as well as between the City and
state and federal labor standards agencies, in the enforcement of this
Chapter.
(a) (b) Implementation. The Agency shall be authorized to
coordinate implementation and enforcement of this Chapter and
may promulgate appropriate guidelines or rules for such purposes
consistent with this Chapter. Any guidelines or rules promulgated by
the Agency shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied
on by Employers, Employees and other parties to determine their
rights and responsibilities under this Chapter. Any guidelines or rules
may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost-effective
implementation of this Chapter, including supplementary procedures
for helping to inform Employees of their rights under this Chapter, for
monitoring Employer compliance with this Chapter, and for providing
administrative hearings to determine whether an Employer or other
person has violated the requirements of this Chapter. The Agency shall
make every effort to resolve complaints in a timely manner and shall
have a policy that the Agency shall take no more than one year to settle,
request an administrative hearing under Section 12R.7(b), or initiate a
civil action under Section 12R.7(c). The failure of the Agency to meet
these timelines within one year shall not be grounds for closure or
dismissal of the complaint.
(b) (c) Administrative Enforcement.
(1) The Agency is authorized to take appropriate steps to enforce
this Chapter. The Agency may investigate any possible violations of this
Chapter by an Employer or other person. Where the Agency has reason
to believe that a violation has occurred, it may order any appropriate
temporary or interim relief to mitigate the violation or maintain the
status quo pending completion of a full investigation or hearing.
(2) Where the Agency, after a hearing that affords a suspected
violator due process, determines that a violation has occurred, it may
order any appropriate relief including, but not limited to, reinstatement,
the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, and the payment
of an additional sum as an administrative penalty in the amount of
$50 to each Employee or person whose rights under this Chapter
were violated for each day that the violation occurred or continued. A
violation for unlawfully withholding wages shall be deemed to continue
from the date immediately following the date that the wages were due
and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200)
of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date immediately
preceding the date the wages are paid in full. Where prompt compliance
is not forthcoming, the Agency may take any appropriate enforcement
action to secure compliance, including initiating a civil action pursuant
to Section 7(c) 12R.7(c) of this Chapter and/or, except where prohibited
by state or federal law, requesting that City agencies or departments
revoke or suspend any registration certificates, permits or licenses held
or requested by the Employer or person until such time as the violation
is remedied. All City agencies and departments shall cooperate
with revocation or suspension requests from the Agency. In order to
compensate the City for the costs of investigating and remedying the
violation, the Agency may also order the violating Employer or person
to pay to the City a sum of not more than $50 for each day and for each
Employee or person as to whom the violation occurred or continued.
Such funds shall be allocated to the Agency and shall be used to offset
the costs of implementing and enforcing this Chapter. The amounts of
all sums and payments authorized or required under this Chapter shall
be updated annually for inflation, beginning January 1, 2005, using
the inflation rate and procedures set forth in Section 4(b) 12R.4 of this
Chapter.
Legal Text – Proposition J
219
(3) An Employee or other person may report to the Agency
in writing any suspected violation of this Chapter. The Agency shall
encourage reporting pursuant to this subsection by keeping confidential,
to the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws, the name and
other identifying information of the Employee or person reporting the
violation. Provided, however, that with the authorization of such person,
the Agency may disclose his or her name and identifying information
as necessary to enforce this Chapter or for other appropriate purposes.
In order to further encourage reporting by Employees, if the Agency
notifies an Employer that the Agency is investigating a complaint,
the Agency shall require the Employer to post or otherwise notify its
Employees that the Agency is conducting an investigation, using a form
provided by the Agency.
(c) (d) Civil Enforcement. The Agency, the City Attorney, any
person aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, any entity a member of
which is aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, or any other person
or entity acting on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable
state law, may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction
against the Employer or other person violating this Chapter and, upon
prevailing, shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be
appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, the
payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an
additional sum as liquidated damages penalties in the amount of $50 to
each Employee or person whose rights under this Chapter were violated
for each day that the violation occurred or continued, reinstatement in
employment and/or injunctive relief, and shall be awarded reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs. Provided, however, that any person or entity
enforcing this Chapter on behalf of the public as provided for under
applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable,
injunctive or restitutionary relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs. Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted as restricting,
precluding, or otherwise limiting a separate or concurrent criminal
prosecution under the Municipal Code or state law. Jeopardy shall not
attach as a result of any administrative or civil enforcement action taken
pursuant to this Chapter.
(d) (e) Interest. In any administrative or civil action brought for
the nonpayment of wages under this Section, the Agency or court, as the
case may be, shall award interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate
of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California
Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due
and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of
Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid
in full.
(e) (f) Posting Notice of Violation. If an Employer fails
to comply with a settlement agreement with the Agency, a final
determination by the Agency after an administrative hearing
officer issues a decision after a hearing under Section 12R.7(b), an
administrative citation issues under Section 12R.19, a decision made
in an administrative appeal brought under Section 12R.21, or judgment
issued by the Superior Court, and the Employer has not filed an appeal
from the administrative hearing decision, administrative citation,
administrative appeal decision, or judgment, or the appeal is final,
the Agency may require the Employer to post public notice of the
Employer’s failure to comply in a form determined by the Agency.
(g) City Employees. Where the aggrieved party is an Employee
of the City, the Employee shall be entitled to all rights and remedies
available under this Section 12R.7 except the Employee may not recover
the $50 per diem penalty provided for in subsections (b) and (c) of this
Section 12R.7.
* * * *
SEC. 12R.10. APPLICATION OF MINIMUM WAGE TO
WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS.
The Minimum Wage established pursuant to Section 12R.4 4(b)
of this Chapter shall apply to the City’s Welfare-to-Work Programs
under which persons must perform work in exchange for receipt of
benefits. Participants in Welfare-to-Work Programs shall not, during
a given benefits period, be required to work more than a number of
hours equal to the value of all cash benefits received during that period,
220
Legal Text – Proposition J and K
divided by the Minimum Wage. Where state or federal law would
preclude the City from reducing the number of work hours required
under a given Welfare-to-Work Program, the City may comply with this
Section by increasing the cash benefits awarded so that their value is no
less than the product of the Minimum Wage multiplied by the number of
work hours required.
SEC. 12R.11. EFFECTIVE OPERATIVE DATE.
The changes to this Chapter adopted at the November 4, 2014
municipal election shall have prospective effect only and shall become
operative effective on May 1, 2015. ninety (90) days after it is adopted.
This Chapter is intended to have prospective effect only.
* * * *
SEC. 12R.17. VIOLATIONS.
(a) Separate and Continuing Violations; Penalties Paid
Do Not Cure Violations. Each and every day that a violation exists
constitutes a separate and distinct offense. Each section violated
constitutes a separate violation for any day at issue. If the person or
persons responsible for a violation fail to correct the violation within the
time period specified on the citation and required under Section 12R.18,
the Director of the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement may issue
subsequent administrative citations for the uncorrected violation(s)
without issuing a new notice as otherwise required by Section
12R.18(b)(a). Payment of the penalty shall not excuse the failure to
correct the violation nor shall it bar any further enforcement action by
the City. If penalties and costs are the subject of administrative appeal
or judicial review, then the accrual of such penalties and costs shall be
stayed until the determination of such appeal or review is final.
(b) Payments to City; Due Date; Late Payment Penalty. All
penalties assessed under Section 12R.16 shall be payable to the City and
County of San Francisco. Administrative penalties and costs assessed
by means of an administrative citation shall be due within thirty (30)
days from the date of the citation. The failure of any person to pay an
administrative penalty and costs within that time shall result in the
assessment of an additional late fee. The amount of the late fee shall
be ten (10) percent of the total amount of the administrative penalty
assessed for each month the penalty and any already accrued late
payment penalty remains unpaid.
(c) Collection of Penalties; Special Assessments. The failure of
any person to pay a penalty assessed by administrative citation under
Section 12R.16 within the time specified on the citation constitutes
a debt to the City. The City may file a civil action, create and impose
liens as set forth below, or pursue any other legal remedy to collect such
money.
(d) Liens. The City may create and impose liens against any
property owned or operated by a person who fails to pay a penalty
assessed by administrative citation. The procedures provided for in
Chapter XX of Chapter 10 Chapter 10, Article XX of the San Francisco
Administrative Code shall govern the imposition and collection of such
liens.
(e) Payment to City. The Labor Standards Enforcement Officer
has the authority to require that payment of back wages found to be
due and owing to employees be paid directly to the City and County of
San Francisco for disbursement to the employees. The Controller shall
hold the back wages in escrow for workers whom the Labor Standards
Enforcement Officer, despite his/her best efforts, including any required
public notice, cannot locate; funds so held for three years or more shall
be dedicated to the enforcement of the Minimum Wage Ordinance or
other laws enforced by the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement.
****
Section 2. The Administrative Code is hereby amended by
revising Chapter 70, to read as follows:
CHAPTER 70: IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
PUBLIC AUTHORITY
****
SEC. 70.11. MINIMUM COMPENSATION.
(a) All Employees of the In-Home Supportive Services Public
Authority, including, without limitation, IHSS personnel referred to
consumers, or referred by consumers for inclusion in the Authority,
38-EN-N14-CP220
shall be deemed to be “Covered Employees” and shall be paid no less
than the “Minimum Compensation,” as such terms are that term is
defined in Chapter 12P.2 of the San Francisco Administrative Code,
and shall be deemed “Employees” and paid no less than the “Minimum
Wage,” as that term is defined in Chapter 12.R of the Administrative
Code. This Section shall be implemented in a manner that does not
conflict with applicable federal or State laws.
Section 3. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance,
the People of the City and County of San Francisco intend to amend
only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections, articles,
numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams, or any other constituent
parts of the Municipal Code that are explicitly shown in this ordinance
as additions or deletions, in accordance with the “Note” that appears
under the official title of the ordinance.
Section 4. Conflict with Other Measures. This Initiative will
be deemed to conflict with any other measure appearing on the same
ballot establishing minimum wage rates. In the event that this Initiative
and any other such measure(s) are approved by the voters at the same
election, and this initiative receives a greater number of affirmative
votes than any other such measure or measures, this initiative shall
control in its entirety and the other measure or measures shall be
rendered void and without any legal effect. If this Initiative is approved
by a majority of the voters but does not receive a greater number of
affirmative votes than any other measure appearing on the same ballot
establishing minimum wage rates, this Initiative shall take effect to the
extent not in conflict with said measure or measures.
Proposition K
The People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby find
and declare as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
(a) San Francisco is suffering from a crisis of housing affordability and displacement affecting the City’s families and seniors. This
destabilization to neighborhood diversity requires immediate action.
(b) In January, 2014 Mayor Lee set forth a proposal to construct or rehabilitate 30,000 homes throughout the City by 2020, with
at least one-third of those permanently affordable to low and moderate
income households, and over 50% within financial reach of working
middle class San Franciscans, which will have a positive impact on the
City’s housing shortage, and will contribute to curbing the price escalation that has resulted from it.
(c) While San Francisco’s median income has grown over
time, the City’s middle-class population has declined by almost 10%
since 1990, and their ability to attain affordable housing in the City has
decreased.
(d) Given the severe decline in federal public housing funding,
and the severely deteriorating physical conditions in many of San
Francisco’s public housing projects, the City has developed a plan for
their rehabilitation.
Section 2. It shall be the official policy of the City and County
of San Francisco:
(a) To confirm the City’s commitment to construct or rehabilitate no less than 30,000 new units by 2020 with at least one-third
(33%) of those permanently affordable to low and moderate income
households, and over 50% within financial reach of working middle
class San Franciscans. The voters urge the Mayor and the Board of
Supervisors to formalize and implement a Housing Action and
Neighborhood Stabilization Plan to realize the 30,000 unit goal including at least one-third of those affordable to low and moderate income
households.
(b) That the Housing Action and Neighborhood Stabilization
Plan shall implement:
Legal Text – Proposition K and L
38-EN-N14-CP221
(1) A Funding Strategy sufficient to support a range of
housing both rental and homeownership housing affordable to low,
moderate and middle income households.
(2) Funding for a Neighborhood Stabilization Trust for
the purpose of preserving the affordability of existing rental units and
stabilizing neighborhoods with historically high levels of evictions.
(3) A land acquisition strategy to purchase sites appropriate for affordable housing.
(4) Funding for public housing rehabilitation.
(c) That the City shall strive to achieve thirty-three percent of
residential units affordable to low and moderate income households in
new Area Plans and Special Use Districts with significantly increased
development potential or those amended to significantly increase development potential.
(d) That by January 1, 2015, the Mayor’s Office of Housing
and the Planning Department and a lead sponsor from the Board of
Supervisors will develop and introduce legislation requiring the City to
review the cumulative ratio of affordable and inclusionary housing to
market rate housing every year through an annual housing production
calculation.
(e) That the Board of Supervisors shall hold an annual hearing
on progress towards the City’s housing goals, including the goal of
one-third affordable to low and moderate income households; and if the
City’s housing goals as stated in this measure are not progressing, the
Mayor shall propose a strategy to achieve those goals, and the Board of
Supervisors shall review this strategy. This shall not be construed to
require a specific housing project to achieve one-third affordability.
Proposition L
With 79% of San Francisco households owning or leasing an
automobile and nearly 50% of San Franciscans who work outside of
their homes driving or carpooling to work, it is time for the Mayor, the
Supervisors, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
(SFMTA) Board to restore a balanced transportation policy for all San
Franciscans.
Balanced transportation policies would better serve San
Francisco motorists, pedestrians, first responders, taxi riders, Muni riders, and bicyclists, and address the unique needs of the disabled,
seniors, and families with children.
The Board of Supervisors created a Transit First policy in 1973.
In 1999, the SFMTA was created. Its unelected board was granted
exclusive authority to dictate the City’s transportation policies. Since
then, the Transit First policy has morphed into one that favors only
public transportation and bicycles, to the exclusion of any other mode
of transportation. Nevertheless, a majority of San Franciscans want the
automobile option for its convenience, personal safety, and freedom of
movement.
The City has eliminated thousands of off-street and on-street
parking spaces through new construction and the creation of new bike
lanes. The City also removed the requirement that one parking space be
created for each new residential unit constructed. To make matters
worse, the SFMTA has not constructed a single new parking garage
since the 1990s. These out-of-balance policies have contributed to a
severe shortage of parking spaces in the City.
By eliminating traffic lanes, the City has increased travel times
for motorists, Muni riders, and first responders alike. This has contributed to greater congestion on our streets, thereby increasing greenhouse-gas emissions.
The City has substantially increased parking garage fees, meter
rates, parking ticket fines, and the costs of residential parking permits,
while expanding the days and times when meters are enforced. Today,
motorists pay a greater share of the SFMTA’s budget than do Muni riders.
Motorists’ share of funding the SFMTA will continue to rise if
the vehicle license fee is tripled, as proposed; parking meters are
expanded into residential neighborhoods; and the City follows through
221
on its plans to introduce variable meter pricing to every neighborhood
of San Francisco.
It shall be the policy of the City and County of San Francisco that:
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
Parking meters should not operate on any City and County
holiday listed on sfgov.org, on Sundays, or outside the
hours of 9:00am to 6:00 p.m. Commencing July 1, 2015,
fees for parking garages, meters, parking tickets, and neighborhood parking permits should be frozen for five years,
allowing the City to annually adjust thereafter only for
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases.
The introduction of parking meters or variable meter pricing into neighborhoods where they currently do not exist
should be allowed only upon petition by the majority of the
affected households and merchants.
A portion of any additional parking or motorists’ fees and
new bond monies earmarked for the San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) should go to
the construction and operation of neighborhood parking
garages.
Any proposed re-engineering of traffic flows in the City
should aim to achieve safer, smoother-flowing streets.
Traffic laws should be enforced equally for everyone using
San Francisco’s streets and sidewalks.
The seven-member SFMTA Board should include not only
four regular riders of Muni, but a fair representation of all
transportation stakeholders, including motorists. The
SFMTA should create a Motorists’ Citizens Advisory
Committee in addition to its other advisory committees.
The Board of Supervisors shall make every reasonable
effort to implement the components of this policy through
appropriate legislative and administrative acts, including
but not limited to acts relating to enacting, repealing, reconciling, amending, and/or ameliorating the components of
this policy with other existing laws, regulations, and policies of the City & County of San Francisco, as well as
seeking, encouraging, lobbying for, and promoting appropriate changes in the laws, regulations, and policies of other
jurisdictions that may conflict with implementation of the
components of this policy.